IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37948 of 2010(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. DR. VENUGOPAL.R., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, VENU NIVAS, VELLASSERY, KADUTHURUTHY.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686604. 2. P.B. SOMAN NAIR, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. LATE A.N.BHASKARAN NAIR, "ANURADHA", HOUSE, VELLASSERY, KADUTHURUTHY.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686604. 3. D. SAJI, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. DEVADASAN NAIR, "KARTHIKA" HUS, VELLASSERY, KADUTHURUTHY.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686604. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SRIT.R.MOHANAKUMAR SRI.G.SHYAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. KADUTHURUTHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KADUTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KADUTHURUTHY.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686604. 2. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ST.ANTONY'S COMPLEX NAGAMPADAM, KOTTAYAM-686001. 3. GEORGE THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, NEDUMPARAMBIL, VLASSERY KARA, KADUTHURUTHY.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686604. 4. T.M. ABDUL KALAM, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ST. ANTONY'S COMPLEX, NAGAMPADAM, KOTTAYAM-686001. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR FOR R2 SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) FOR R3 SRI.SAJU JOHN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.37948/10 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT NO.PCB/KTM/ICO/535/2010 DATED 8.11.2010 TOGETHER WITH THE APPROVED PLAN ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE NO.A6-6910/10/324 DT 23.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2A: TRANSLATED VERSION OF EXT.P2 TO ENGLISH. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT NO.64.1079/08 DT 17.5.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION DATED 23.7.2009 OF THE PETITIONERS AND THE RESIDENTS BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5A: TRANSLATED VERSION OF EXT.P5. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT 24.7.2009 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6A: TRANSLATED VERSION OF EXT.P6. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.10.2010 OF THE PETITIONERS SUBMITTED TO 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7A: TRANSLATED VERSION OF EXT.P7. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.10.2010 OF THE PETITIONERS TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE OF KADUTHURUTHY. EXT.P8A: TRANSLATED VERSION OF EXT.P8. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.A6-6808/10 DT 30.10.2010 OF THE 1ST RESPODNENT ISSUED TO 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9A: TRANSLATED VERSION OF EXT.P9A EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DT 3.11.2010 OF THE 3RD RESPODNENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P10A: TRANSLATED VERSION OF EXT.P10. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUILDING AND PREMISES TAKEN BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 4.11.2010 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. WPC NO.37948/10 -2- EXT.P12A: TRANSLATED VERSION OF EXT.P12. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.A6.6808/10 DT 5.11.2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P13A: TRANSLATED VERSION OF EXT.P13. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT 9.11.2010 OF THE 1ST AND 3RD PETITIOENS HEREIN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 10.11.2010 OF THE PETITIOENR SNA DINHABITANTS TO 1ST RESPODNENT AND DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER. EXT.P15A: TRANSLATED VERSION OF EXT.P15. EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A6/6808/10 DT 11.11.2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P17: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT 11.11.2010 OF 2ND PETITIOENR TO 1ST RESPODENT. EXT.18: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 11.11.2010 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P19: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT 11.11.2010 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P19A: TRANSLATED VERSION OF EXT.P19. EXT.P20: TRUE COPY OF MASS PETITION DT 12.11.2010 OF THE INHABITANTS FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P20A: TRNASLATED VERSION OF EXT.P20. EXT.P21: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT 15.11.2010 OF THE OVERSEER ON BEHALF OF 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P21A: TRANSLATED VERSION OF EXT.P21. EXT.P22: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.A5.6877/10 DT 18.11.2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P22A: TRANSLATED VERSION OF EXT.P22. EXT.P23: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 3.12.2010 IN IA NO.1771/2010 IN OS NO.322/10 OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, VAIKAM. EXT.P24: TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DT NIL OF JUNE 2010 AND IA NO.1771/2010 IN OS NO.322 OF 2010 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, VAIKAM. //TRUE COPY// Rp P.A. TO JUDGE J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============================== W.P.(C) NO. 37948 OF 2010 ====================== Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Antony Dominic, J. Petitioners are residents of Ward No.II of Kaduthuruthy Grama Panchayat. They filed this writ petition styling itself as a public interest litigation with the following three prayers:- (i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction calling for the records leading to the issue of Ext.P1 consent and Ext.P2 licence in favour of 3rd respondent and quash the same; (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, orders or directions commanding the 1st respondent Panchayat to ensure that neither cement handling is permitted in building No KP III/341-A in Kaduthuruthy Panchayat owned by 3rd respondent nor it will be permitted to be used as a cement storage. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, orders or direction commanding the 1st respondent Panchayat to ensure that Building No KP III/341-A in Kaduthuruthy Panchayat owned by the 3rd respondent will be permitted to be used as only for commercial occupancy as per Ext.P4 permit and never for 'storage' or 'hazardous' occupancy in violation of the provisions of Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. 2. First of all, we are not satisfied that the petitioners have made out a case for entertaining this writ petition as public WP(C) No.37948/2010 : 2 : interest litigation. The expression “public interest litigation” has been understood as meaning legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected {vide Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary (1992(4) SCC 305)}. Such litigation should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and shall not be publicity-oriented or founded on personal vendetta (vide Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B {(2004) 3 SCC 349}. It has been held by the Apex Court that the public interest litigation is not a pill or panacea for all wrongs and that it was essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and the disadvantaged and was a procedure which was innovated where a public-spirited person files a petition in effect on behalf of such persons who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and social disabilities could not approach the court for relief (BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India (2002(2) SCC 333). 3. Applying these tests, we are clear in our minds that the issue raised in this writ petition concerning the validity of Ext.P1 consent to operate issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control WP(C) No.37948/2010 : 3 : Board or Ext.P2, the licence issued by the respondent Panchayat on purely private disputes cannot form the subject matter of public interest litigation. 4. In so far as Ext.P1 consent to operate issued by the Pollution Control Board in favour of the 3rd respondent is concerned, Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 provides for remedy of appeal. Similarly, against Ext.P2, the licence issued under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is concerned also, if the petitioners are aggrieved, it is open to them to seek statutory remedy of appeal. Therefore, effective alternate statutory remedies are available to the petitioners and it is for the petitioners to pursue those remedies. However, in his endeavour to contend that the writ petition is maintainable, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Exts.P1 and P2 were issued without jurisdiction, and therefore, it is open to the petitioners to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court without pursuing the alternate statutory remedies. 5. Admittedly, the respondent Panchayat has been invested with the power to issue licence under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Similarly, the Pollution Control Board also has been invested with such powers. Therefore, it is not a case where WP(C) No.37948/2010 : 4 : these authorities are not without jurisdiction to issue the licenses. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the licence and consent were issued without jurisdiction to justify the filing of this writ petition without taking recourse to the statutory remedies. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. However, it is clarified that if the petitioners are aggrieved, it will still be open to the petitioners to pursue the statutory remedies and it is directed that if they file appeals against the impugned orders within one month from today, the respective appellate authorities will entertain the appeals and deal with the same in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. J.CHELAMESWAR CHIEF JUSTICE. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE. Rp