IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36317 of 2004(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K. CHANDRAN, S/O.LATE KUPPAI, IDUKKUPARA, GOVINDAPURAM POST, MUTHALAMADA AMSOM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K., SRI.LIJU. M.P. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN. 2. MUTHALAMADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUTHALAMADA POST, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 5. VIGNESWARA FIBRES, IDUKKUPARA, GOVINDAPURAM POST, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST., REP. BY VISWANATHAN (PROPRIETOR/ PERSON IN-CHARGE). R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.T.T. MUHAMOOD. R1 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA, SC, PCB. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS, SC, PCB. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANA KANNAN. R5 BY ADV. SRI.A.K.SESHADRI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C) NO. 36317/2004-W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 01/11/2004 SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE POSTAL (SERIES) RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON SENDING EXT.P1 PETITION TO THE RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5: COPY OF THE PERMANENT REGISTRATION DATED 25/02/1999. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.36317 Of 2004 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by the alleged pollution created by the operation of the 5th respondent- an industrial establishment. 2. The residence of the petitioner is situated abutting the Chemmanampathy road and the 5th respondent established a Coir Mill allegedly on the opposite side of the petitioner's residence with the name “Vigneswara Fibres'. It is alleged that that due to the continuous emission of sound pollution as well as dust pollution from the 5th respondent-company, the peaceful life of the petitioner and his family members have been put in peril. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board and the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. 4. The 5th respondent has denied the allegations raised against the running of the Unit, in the counter affidavit. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control W.P.(C)No.36317/04 -2- Board submitted that the consent to operate under the Water Act was issued to the Unit on 1.4.2005 with certain conditions. As the Unit has not complied with the consent conditions, show cause notice was issued to the unit on 9.6.2006. Consent was revoked on 19.2.2007 . Again they applied for consent of the Board on 16.6.2008. The consent to operate was issued on 23.7.2008 with certain conditions including effluent treatment facilities. Inspections were conducted thereafter and in the light of the compliance of the various conditions, consent was renewed on 10.9.2009, which was valid upto 30.6.2010. 6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that at the instance of the petitioner, proceedings under section 133(1)(b) Cr.P.C. was filed against the 5th respondent, which was disposed of by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palakkad as per order dated 25.6.2005 finding that the petition is not maintainable under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. 7. In the light of the above, as the 5th respondent has got a valid consent issued by the Pollution Control Board, this Court, at this stage, will not be justified in issuing any direction as sought for by the petitioner. W.P.(C)No.36317/04 -3- 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some civil proceedings are pending before competent courts. The dismissal of the Writ Petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner prosecuting any such other remedies. The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observation. Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn True copy P.A.to Judge