IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14881 of 2011(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BIJU ANTONY,S/O.K.V.ANTONY,AGED 36 YEARS H.NO.17/1481 D,OPPOSITE JALAVAYUVIHAR, MUNDANVELY P.O, KOCHI 682 507. BY ADVS. SRI.BIMAL K.NATH SRI.S.JAMAL SRI.E.M.SUNIL KUMAR SRI.SREEVALSAN.V RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. COCHIN CORPORATION REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,ERNAKULAM.PIN- 682 011. 2. HEALTH INSPECTOR,CIRCLE-7,COCHIN CORPORATION ERNAKULAM.PIN- 682 011. 3. K.K.MURALEEDHARAN,17/1125,PULICKAL, MUNDANVELI P.O, KOCHI.PIN- 682 507. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.RANJITH.R, SC, COCHIN CORPORATION SRI.P.K.SOYUZ, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.14881/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/09/2010 OF THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN. P2 COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE KERALA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN. P3 COPY OF THE INTIMATION NOTICE DATED 11/02/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE REQUEST REOPENING THE BUSINESS OF THE PETITIONER. P5 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE COMPLAINANT/3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.14881 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is conducting retail distribution of building materials like metal, sand etc. in 15 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.159/1C of Ernakulam Village. One Sri.K.K.Muraleedharan, the third respondent made a complaint as O.P.No.1118/2010 against the functioning of the said unit and that ultimately culminated in Ext.P1 order of the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. The Ombudsman had called for a report of the Pollution Control Board and based on the report, directed the Secretary of the first respondent Corporation to ensure implementation of the Pollution Control Board by the petitioner and in case of failure, to take steps for its closure. Ext.P2 is the report of the Environmental Engineer of the Pollution control Board that contains the suggestion regarding remedial measures. However, it is reported thereunder that its permanent functioning is impermissible. The Writ Petition has been filed challenging Exts.P1 and P2 and also seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 representation that carries a request for W.P.(C) NO.14881/2011 2 permission to re-open the business unit on the ground of full compliance with the directions in Ext.P2. In view of the said request, the petitioner is not justified in raising challenge against Exts.P1 and P2. 2. The petitioner has now submitted Ext.P4 representation before the first respondent intimating the first respondent that all remedial measures were taken as directed in Ext.P2 to abate the nuisance caused by the functioning of the said unit and, therefore, to grant permission to re- open the yard. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P5 allegedly a letter from the third respondent, the complainant before the first respondent to the effect that he himself and also the public are satisfied with the remedial measures taken by the petitioner herein. The petitioner seeks for a direction to the first respondent to consider the subsequent developments and to take a decision on Ext.P4 for permission to re-open the yard. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Admittedly, it is the 3rd respondent who filed the complaint that led to the passing of Ext.P1 by the Ombudsman based on Ext.P2 report. Obviously, as per Ext.P2, the Pollution Control Board found substance in the grievance raised by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, even if it is taken that the 3rd W.P.(C) NO.14881/2011 3 respondent is now, interested to seek withdrawal from his complaint that cannot be a reason for withdrawing the steps taken pursuant to the directions in Ext.P1 made based on Ext.P2. I do not think it necessary in the circumstances to issue notice to the third respondent. 4. Evidently, the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions directed the first respondent to take appropriate steps to close down business unit of the petitioner in case of failure to comply with the directions in Ext.P2. As per Ext.P4, the petitioner intimated the first respondent that he has already taken remedial measures to abate the said nuisance. In the said circumstances, it is only appropriate that the Environmental Engineer attached to the office of the District office of the Pollution Control Board, Ernakulam conducts an inspection into the concerned business unit and its premises and forward a report to the first respondent as to whether the petitioner had taken all remedial measures to abate the nuisance as directed as per Ext.P2 and whether any further remedial measures are to be taken. The Environmental Engineer shall, with notice to the petitioner and also to the 3rd respondent, conduct an inspection and file a report in terms of the directions in this judgment within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C) NO.14881/2011 4 The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the Environmental Engineer to enable him to comply with the said direction. Thereafter, based on the report, the first respondent shall take a decision on Ext.P4 in terms of this judgment within three weeks. This Writ Petition is disposed of, accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.14881/2011 5 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.14881/2011 6