IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 920 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.14714/2011 DATED 29.07.2011 .................... PETITIONER : PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION ------------------------------------------ C.M.DANIEL, S/O.C.O.MATHAI, AGED 61 YEARS, CHARUVILLAPUTHENVEEDU (KUTTIYIL), CHANDANAPALLY.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. A.K.ALEX RESPONDENT: 2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C) ---------------------------------------- JOHNS GEORGE, S/O.C.M.GEORGE, AGED 51 YEARS, JYOTHI BHAVAN, CHANDANAPALLY.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY MR. M.G.KARTHIKEYAN THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cont. Case (C) No. 920 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 26th September , 2011 JUDGMENT This petition has been filed alleging contumacious act on the part of the respondent, in complying with the directions given by this Court as per the common judgment dated 29.07.2011 in W.P.(C) Nos. 14714 & 20171 of 2011. It is the case of the petitioner that the directions as aforesaid have been violated and the respondent is operating the Hallow-brick manufacturing Unit without getting all the requisite licences as contemplated under the relevant provisions of law. 2. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as follows : 4. After hearing all concerned, including the learned Government Pleader, this Court finds that the matter can be disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and pass Ext. P1 giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. Accordingly, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider Ext. P1 in W.P.(C) 20171/ 2011 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law; after hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner in W.P.(C) 14714/2011. The proceedings shall be finalized as above as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Operation of the unit shall commence only on obtaining favourable orders in this regard. COC (C) No. 920 of 2011 : 2 : The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the specific direction given by this Court, vide judgment as aforesaid, that the commencement of operation of the unit shall be effected only after getting favourable orders on Ext. P1 in W.P(C) 14714 of 2011, the respondent is operating the unit without getting any such orders. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent entered appearance and filed counter affidavit, explaining the sequence of events, also producing the relevant documents, including various licences obtained. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the directions given by this Court as per judgment dated 29.07.2011 have been fully satisfied by all concerned. After taking note of the said directions, the parties were heard in the meeting held on 02.08.2011 culminating in Annexure R1 proceedings. It has been observed in the aforesaid proceedings, vide item No. 25 as follows: “Decision No. 25 M/s Gems Blocks, Kodumon (207/11) : The president of the local body and convenor informed the SWC Board that there are some objections from the neighbours against the setting up of the unit. The board noted that a WP(C) No. 14714 of 2011 was filed by Sri C.M. Daniel against the setting up of the unit. The Board heard both s parties. MR. C.M. Daniel & COC (C) No. 920 of 2011 : 3 : Others raised their concerns regarding health and pollution. The promote informed the board that he proposes to start a hollow brick unit with 10 H.P. only. The local objection is mainly centered around setting up of a Granite Crusher unit in the same vicinity and that it is abandoned. The President of the local body was also of the opinion that the hollow brick unit may be allowed after getting necessary permissions. The board noted that the consents / NOCs from Factories & Boilers, DMO (H), KSPCB have been received for the setting up of the unit. Hence, the SWC Board decided to direct that local body to issue the licence for setting up a hollow brick unit with a connected load of 10 H.P only The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioner herein was also heard, as clearly observed in Annexure R1 and a conscious decision was taken, based on the requisite licences obtained by the respondent. The learned counsel also made a reference to various licences, such as Annexure R2 issued by the Secretary of the concerned Grama Panchayath and Annexures R4 to R7 No Objection Certificates issued by the District Medical Officer (Health), Inspector of Factories, Fire and Rescue Services, Kerala State Pollution Control Board respectively. Accordingly, the Single Window Clearance Board directed the Local Authority to issue necessary COC (C) No. 920 of 2011 : 4 : certificate for setting up a hollow-brick unit with a connected load of 10HP. 5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, on the basis of the requisite licences as aforesaid, the petitioner had applied for temporary connection, remitting the prescribed fee for 'machine test'. After effecting the necessary test by the Board, application for permanent connection was submitted and the same was provided to the petitioner on 14.09.2011, allotting the consumer number vide Annexure R3. However, in the meanwhile, the Pollution Control Board happened to issue a notice, alleging non-satisfaction of the conditions imposed. It is stated that on 23.09.2011, the Pollution Control Board conducted an inspection and on satisfaction, the Board issued orders permitting the respondent to carry out the operation of the unit. This being the position, the allegation of contempt mooted by the petitioner is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed, submits the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent and perusing the relevant materials produced, this Court finds that no concrete material has been brought out to proceed against the respondent, in respect of the alleged contumacious act. COC (C) No. 920 of 2011 : 5 : There is a case for the petitioner that the relevant orders have been passed by the concerned authorities without hearing the petitioner. On going by Annexure R1, it is seen that the petitioner was also heard by the concerned authority before finalizing the proceedings in accordance with the directions given by this Court as per the judgment dated 29.07.2011. Even otherwise, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved of Annexure R1 in any manner, it is for the petitioner to have it challenged by resorting to appropriate proceedings, which cannot be pursued in a contempt matter. The Contempt Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd