Thomas vs State Of Kerala

WP(C) No.29688/2021                       1/3

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                        PRESENT
                      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
              Friday, the 17th day of June 2022 / 27th Jyaishta, 1944
                            WP(C) NO. 29688 OF 2021(I)
   PETITIONERS:

      1. THOMAS AGED 64 YEARS S/O.MATHEW, CHAVANIYANKAL HOUSE, EZHUMUTTOM
         P.O., CHALASSERY, KARIMANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI
         DISTRICT - 685 605.
      2. ROYCHAN K.J. AGED 53 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, KODIYANPURAYIDATHIL HOUSE,
         EZHUMUTTOM P.O., CHALLASSERY, KARIKKODU VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK,
         IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 605.
      3. LALSON AGED 47 YEARS S/O.ABRAHAM, CHAKKAMKUNNEL HOUSE, EZHUMUTTAM
         P.O., CHALASSERY, KARIMANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI
         DISTRICT - 685 605.
      4. JOSE AGED 46 YEARS S/O.AUGUSTINE, CHAKKAMKUNNEL HOUSE, EZHUMUTTAM
         P.O., CHALLASSERY, KARIMANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI
         DISTRICT - 686 605.

   RESPONDENTS:

      1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
         DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
      2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KUYILYMALA, PAINAVU P.O.,
         IDUKKI - 685 603.
      3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH) KUYILYMALA, PAINAVU P.O.,
         IDUKKI - 685 603.
      4. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
         DISTRICT OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI - 685 584.
      5. KARIMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GRAMA
         PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KARIMANNOOR POST, THODUPUZHA TALUK,IDUKKI
         DISTRICT - 685 581.
      6. KARIMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE REP. BY PRESIDENT, GRAMA
         PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KARIMANNOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI - 685 581.
      7. THE SECRETARY KARIMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
         KARIMANNOOR POST, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 581.
      8. ZAKARIYA A.M. S/O.MUHAMMED, ENNAMBILAY HOUSE, VATTAKKATTUPADY,
         PERUMBAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 548, THE MANAGING
         PARTNER, M/S.FINE INDUSTRIES, KARIMANNOOR, IDUKKI - 685 581.
      9. NAVAS T.P. S/O.PAREETH, THONIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUDIKKAL P.O.,
         NEDUMTHODE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 547, PARTNER,
         M/S.FINE INDUSTRIES, KARIMANNOOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685 581.
     10. ABUBACKER E.H. S/O.HANEEFA, EDATHATHARA HOUSE, ALLAPRA P.O.,
         VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 556, PARTNER,
         M/S.FINE INDUSTRIES, KARIMANNOOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 581.
     11. AJEESH A.N. S/O.NITHAKUNJU, EDANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR P.O.,
         VATTAKKATTUPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 548, PARTNER, M/S.FINE
         INDUSTRIES, KARIMANNOOR, IDUKKI - 685 581.
 WP(C) No.29688/2021                           2/3




        Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
   stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
   pleased to stay the operation and implementation of Exhibit P1-resolution
   No.9(1) dated 09-09-2021 and consequential permits issued by respondents 5
   to 7 and Exhibit P4- in Appeal No.489 of 2021 of the Tribunal for Local
   Self Governemnt Insitutitions, Thiruvananthapuram, pending disposal of
   this WP(C) in the interest of justice.
        This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and
   the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
   M/S GEORGE MATHEW, PRAVEEN S., M.D.SASIKUMARAN, SUNIL KUMAR A.G, DIPU
   JAMES, MATHEW K.T., GEORGE K.V., STEPHY K REGI Advocates for the
   petitioners, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for R1 to R3, SRI.T.NAVEEN, STANDING
   COUNSEL for R4, SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY,Advocate for R7 and M/s.
   P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN, K.R.PRATHISH, Advocates for R8 to R11, the court
   passed the following:
                                      ORDER

The main contention of the petitioner is that in the light of Exhibit P6 order of the District Medical Officer, the factory cannot function and the same is not considered by the Tribunal in Exhibit P4 judgment because it is a subsequent proceedings.

Respondents 8 to 11 seeks time to file counter affidavit. Respondents 8 to 11 shall not function the factory without getting consent to operate from the 4th respondent.

Post on 18-07-2022.

                                                    Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE




17-06-2022                      /True Copy/                              Assistant Registrar
 WP(C) No.29688/2021                 3/3

                       APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29688/2021
Exhibit P1            TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.9(1) DTD. 09/09/2021 OF 6TH
                      RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4            TRUE COPY OF ORDER DTD. 11/11/2021 PASSED BY LSGI
                      TRIBUNAL ON APPEAL NO.489 OF 2021.
Exhibit P6            TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO.C4-14970/2021 DTD. 20/11/2021 OF

3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH FIELD REPORT.