IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13230 of 2007(Y) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. SAJU VARGHESE, S/O.VARKEY VARGHESE, THAVALACHALIL HOUSE, NELLIMATTAM,KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE,KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 2. SANTHAKUMARI, W/O.HARIHARAN, PANDANCHERIL HOUSE, 200 ACRE KARA,MANNAMKAANDAM VILLAGE. 3. E.K.VINCE, S/O.LATE E.C.KURIAKOSE, EDAKUDIYIL HOUSE, ADIMALI, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE. 4. V.ARUL CHELVI, W/O.J.PAUL, FACTORY DIVISION, KALLAR ESTATE, MUNNAR. 5. KURIAKOSE T.M., S/O.MATHAI, THAYIL HOUSE, MUNNARKARA, K.D.H. VILLAGE. 6. JOSE PAUL, S/O.POULOSE, THELAKATTU HOUSE, MANNARKARA, K.H.D.VILLAGE. 7. M.J.THOMAS, S/O.JOSEPH, KUNNEL HOUSE, MUNNARKARA, K.H.D.VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.P.CHANDY JOSEPH, MR.T.I.ABDUL SALAM. Kss .2/- ..2... WPC.NO.13230/2007 Y RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEVIKULAM. 2. THE MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MUNNAR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI. 4. PAPPACHAN.K., ELENJIKAL, ELENJICKAL ARCADE,MUNNAR P.O.,IDUKKI DISTRCIT. *ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED: R5. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *IMPLEADED SUO - MOTU VIDE ORDER DTD. 17/07/2009 IN WPC.NO.13230/07. R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. MANU R4 BY ADV. MR.GEORGE ABRAHAM ADDL.R5 BY ADV. MR. M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, PCB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.13230/2007 Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN THE DESHABHIMANI DAILY DTD. 19/01/2005. P2: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN THE MANGALAM AND MATHRUBHUMI DAILIES DTD. 19/01/2005. P3: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 8/04/2005 BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT BY PETITIONERS AND OTHERS BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN THE MANGALAM DAILY DTD. 11/04/2005. P5: COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DTD. 13/02/2007. P6: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, P.H.CENTRE, DEVIKULAM WITH THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT GRADE - I TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 13/02/2007. P7: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN THE DESHABHIMANI DAILY DTD. 2/03/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4(A): COPY OF F.I.R. FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH THE POLICE AGAINST THE 1ST PETITIONER. R4(B): COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.43/2007 IN THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, DEVIKULAM. R4(C): COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 19/03/05 OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT. R49D):COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.9805/2005. R4(E): COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SUB COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM DTD. 8/10/2007. R4(F): COPY OF THE CONSENT GIVEN BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,TVM. R4(G): COPY OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST THE 1ST PETITIONER IN THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,DEVIKULAM ON 17/06/2004. R4(H): COPY OF COMMUNICATION DTD. 7/06/2005 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).13230/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. 4th respondent has established a lodging house in Munnar. Petitioners are owners of the shop room in the ground floor of the same building. According to the petitioners, the 4th respondent is running a hotel without any licence from the 2nd respondent and that too in a most unhygienic manner without providing any facilities for disposal of wastes including human excrete and other wastes and effluents. It is stated that the wastes are being discharged in front of the building and backyard which causes various health problems. They make reference to Ext.P6 report which suggest that there is substance in what they allege. However, the Pollution Control Board had granted consent to the establishment in question and when consent had expired on 13.6.2009 an application for renewal was submitted which was also pending consideration. 2. Taking note of the above facts, this Court passed an order on 27.7.2009 directing that the Pollution Control Board will conduct an enquiry and will renew the consent only if they are satisfied with W.P.(C).13230/07 2 the facilities that are provided by the 4th respondent for compliance with the conditions of the consent. 3. It is now submitted that an inspection had been conducted and the consent has since been renewed. But then renewal of consent by itself does not exonerate the Pollution Control Board from its obligation to ensure that its directions and the conditions of consent are strictly complied with. This requires periodical inspection and instructions to the licencees, which the respondent shall faithfully do, bearing in mind the responsibility that it owes to the Society. 4. Therefore, the Pollution Control Board is directed to make periodical inspection of the establishment of the 4th respondent and ensure that the conditions of the consent and its remedial suggestions are strictly complied with. It is directed that in the event any violation is found, it will be the responsibility of the Pollution Control Board to take strict action including for closure of the lodging house itself. 5. As far as the Revenue Divisional Officer is concerned, the W.P.(C).13230/07 3 learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the RDO had initiated proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. against the 4th respondent. It is stated that the final order was passed, but however, in a revision filed by the 4th respondent, the order was set aside by the District & Sessions Court and that the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. As the matter now stands remanded, the RDO shall initiate steps for passing fresh orders. The RDO shall expedite the proceedings and if necessary conduct local inspection as well and thereafter orders in accordance with law shall be passed without any delay in the matter The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Communicate a copy of this judgment to the RDO and the Chairman, Pollution Control Board, for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs