IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 WA.No. 453 of 2008 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.4670/2007 Dated 05/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN WPC:- ------------------------------------------------ A.O.DAVIS, S/O.A.D.OUSEPH, AGED 32 YEARS, CARPENTER, ACHINIMADAN HOUSE, NJALUKKARA, AZHAKAM P.O., KARUKUTTY. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ (SR.) SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SRI.JYOTHISH.J.KALLINGAL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN WPC & ADDL.RESPONDENTS 5 & 6:- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL LANES, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ERNAKULAM, AND CONVENOR, SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD, ERNAKULAM. 3. KARUKUTTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARUKUTTY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALI. w.a.NO.453 OF 2008 -2- 6. N.V.JOSE, S/O.VAREED, AGED 60 YEARS, NALKARA HOUSE, KARAYAMPARAMBA P.O. KARUKUTTY, ERNAKULAM. R1, R2, R5 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO R4 BY ADV.SMT.K.K.THULASY BHAI-SC POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD R6 BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.453 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT K.M.Joseph, J. The petitioner in the writ petition is the appellant in this writ appeal. The writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs: “ i). issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside Exts.P4 and P6. ii). issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction compelling the 4th respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 in accordance with law.” (2). The appellant/petitioner filed the writ petition on the following allegations inter alia. He is a carpenter. He purchased a small extent of land to start a unit. He is running a wood furniture workshop. He approached this Court by filing writ petition. This Court disposed of the writ petition by Ext.P2 judgment giving certain directions. One such direction was that, if the appellant moved the competent authority in the Pollution Control Board with a written request, the officer having jurisdiction will conduct an inspection of the unit and suggest remedial measures to control any pollution within the permissible limits and if the petitioner complies with such conditions, again the said authority will inspect the site and issue a letter of satisfaction as to the compliance of the conditions. According to the appellant, he filed Ext.P3 application before the Senior Environmental W.A.No.453/2008 -2- Engineer, Pollution Control Board. But, the 4th respondent Pollution Control Board has not inspected the wood furniture workshop of the appellant. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent Panchayat issued Exts.P4 and P6 notices to the appellant demanding to stop his wood furniture workshop. This compelled him to approach this Court. (3). The learned Single Judge taking note of the earlier directions rendered in Ext.P2 judgment disposed of the writ petition permitting the appellant to move the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Further he has ordered continuance of the interim order on condition that the appellant/petitioner shifts the planer and the lathe referred to in Annexure A report to the satisfaction of the 4th respondent. It is feeling aggrieved by the said judgment the appellant is before us in this writ appeal. (4). We heard Sri.M.M.Abdul Aziz, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned senior counsel would point out that pursuant to the directions in Ext.P2, even though the appellant moved the Pollution Control Board, the officer of the Pollution Control Board has not cared to comply with the directions in Ext.P2 and no inspection was conducted. It is submitted that the directions of the learned Single Judge to remove the planer and the lathe causes serious injustice to him. He points out that he is only a carpenter and eeking his livelihood from the unit situated in a small extent of land. (5). A counter affidavit has been filed in the appeal by the Pollution Control Board wherein, inter alia, it is stated as follows: W.A.No.453/2008 -3- 8. The respondent Board again conducted an inspection on 27-02-2008. The planer and lathe machines were found installed in the new location ie, the place described as “charthu”. The planer was made in operation and sound level was recorded. The results follow: 1m outside eastern side -70dBA South -68dBA West (Complainant's property) -58dBA The above result reveal that the sound level exceeds the permissible level of 55 dBA. The ambient sound level at the site while the unit was in nonoperation was recorded as 52dBA on 27-02-2008.” (6). The case of the appellant is of course that the appellant has got deemed license from the Single Window Clearance Board. But, it is not in dispute that the appellant has not obtained no objection to establish from the Pollution Control Board followed by no objection to operate again from the Pollution Control Board. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the appellant is prepared to take remedial measures so as to make the unit compliant with the requirements of the Pollution Control Board. (7). In such circumstances, we feel that the writ appeal can be disposed of with the following directions. Order i). The writ appeal is disposed of. ii). If the appellant makes appropriate application to the Pollution Control Board seeking permission to establish the unit, the 4th respondent will consider the same and communicate its decision in accordance with law, to the appellant within a period of two weeks from the W.A.No.453/2008 -4- date of receipt of the application. Thereafter, it is for the appellant to move the Pollution Control Board seeking consent to operate the unit. Upon receipt of such application and obviously after complying with the requisite conditions, the 4th respondent will again conduct an inspection and consider the question whether no objection to operate can be given and the decision in this regard shall be taken within six weeks from the date of grant of the no objection to establish the unit. Till the time the appellant obtains consent to operate, the appellant is restrained from operating the unit. Needless to say that the appellant has to obtain license as required under law from the local body. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE MS