IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25314 of 2009(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SRI.ABDU, S/O. UNNIHASSAN, MANNACHERY HOUSE, PUNNAPPALA, THAYANCODE P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.R.SUDHEESH KUMAR, MR.SUNIL KUMAR A.G. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE WANDOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, WANDOOR. 3. THE SECRETARY, WANDOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, WANDOOR. 4. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, 19/269 A, UP HILL P.O., MALAPPURAM, REP. BY THE ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. I.V. PRAMOD, R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR. MANSOOR B.B, R4 BY ADV. MR.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2009, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 25799/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.25314/2009-H: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.2.A: COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE R.2. DTD. 12/02/2009 FOR INSTALLING 3 HP MOTOR. EXT.P.2.B: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 21/05/09. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE R.3. DTD. 25/08/2009. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 24/02/2009 ISSUED BY THE R.4. ON THE APPLICATION FOR CONSENT MADE BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).Nos.25314 & 25799 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The latter among the captioned matters is listed today for admission. The petitioner therein is the neighbour of the petitioner in W.P(C).25314/09, who operates a water service station for cleaning automobiles. 2.The panchayat had issued licence to the operator. While he was carrying on that activity, the neighbour objected. On those objections, the panchayat secretary called upon the operator to close down the business within 15 days. A search of the statutory provisions does not appear to show the existence of an authority for such immediate closure, unless that was imminently necessary. I say this because fairness in exercise of jurisdiction and powers is one of the guarantees of rule of law emanating out of the concept of equality before law and in protection of the laws enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Court, taking into consideration the WPC.25314/09 & 25799/09 Page numbers application of the operator for consent before the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, admitted W.P(C).25314/09 on 31.8.2009 and granted an interim order of stay of operation of the order of the panchayat secretary. In the aforesaid circumstance, the neighbour seeks a direction to have the decision of the panchayat enforced. 3.Leaving aside the controversy between the neighbours, if the operator's application before the PCB dated 24.2.2009 is still pending for consideration for issuance of consent to operate, it reflects a very sorry state of affairs of a department or authority vested with abundant jurisdiction in relation to environmental laws. The primary concern is not merely an operator or a neighbour. The more important consideration of all such authorities should be the entire environment. If such a vision is not readily available with the authorities, such institutions are bound to fail. WPC.25314/09 & 25799/09 Page numbers 4.As of now, the operator is continuing with his activity on the strength of the interim order granted provisionally. The neighbour has other remedies also available to him for abating nuisance. However, he is also entitled to contest the permit granted to the operator. He has raised his objections and the panchayat had commenced its action on it though in an abrupt manner. 5.Taking the aforesaid fact situation into consideration, these writ petitions are ordered directing that the operator and the neighbour would appear before the secretary of the panchayat and said authority will decide on the controversy between the parties in accordance with law. But, before concluding such proceedings, the operator who is continuing as of now with his operations on the strength of the interim order already issued in W.P(C).25314/09, will be given a period of 45 days to produce the decision of the PCB authorities on his application for consent and the panchayat will conclude the proceedings on the basis of the decision that the PCB may take. The 4th WPC.25314/09 & 25799/09 Page numbers respondent will take up the said application and issue decision thereon within a period of three weeks unless such decision has already been taken. These writ petitions are so ordered preserving the rights of parties to seek statutory reliefs and remedies if either of them is aggrieved by the decision that the panchayat secretary may take following the aforesaid directions. All issues on merits are left open. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.15/9.