IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 35327 OF 2015
PETITIONER/S:
SHAIJU K.K.
UJJAYINI,WARD VI,THRIVENI ROAD,KOLAZHY.P.O,THRISSUR
DISTRICT-680010.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.A.ANOOP
SMT.C.K.REMANY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SECRETARY, KOLAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
KOLAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,THRISSUR,P.O.M.G.KAVU,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001.
2 MS.SOUPARNIKA THERMISTORS AND HYBRIDS PVT.LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
M.JAYAKUMAR,KOLAZHY.P.O,ATHEKKAD,THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN-680010.
3 THE CHEIF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
REGIONAL OFFICE,KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
ERNAKULAM-682011.
BY ADVS.
SMT.R.RAJITHA
SRI.K.B.GANGESH
SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SRI.K.B.GANGESH
SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SRI. T.NAVEEN , SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
SMT.VINAYA V.NAIR, GP SRI JACOB P SIMON
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 35327 OF 2015
2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction to the Panchayath and Pollution control Board to take action against running of an industry by the 2 nd respondent on the following premises. The 2nd respondent got the licence to start the company on suppressing material facts. The PH value of the drinking water in the nearby wells is very low. The waste materials are burnt in the compound and the resultant smoke causes various lung diseases like Asthma to the local residents. Petitioner is residing permanently in the address given in the memo of parties and living peacefully along with his family. The information sought under the RTI would reveal that the unit is being running in an area of 1900 sq.ft.
2. The 2nd respondent contested the aforementioned petition on the ground that all the allegations against the petitioner are bundle of lies in as much as that the licence originally issued was only valid upto 31.12.2016 and thereafter it was renewed as per Ext.R2(a). Pollution control Board had granted the renewal of consent to operate for respondent No.2 on 28.5.2015 upto 31.12.2016. As per Ext.P2 licence, Company was functioning with licence from the Panchayath. Application for WP(C) NO. 35327 OF 2015 3 renewal of Ext.P2 licence was submitted in time and Panchayath accepted his licence fee for the year 2016-17, Ext.R2(b). The company manufactures engine temperature sensing and control components. Originally, the company started functioning in Ward No.7 (Now ward No.8) in Building No.615 as mentioned in Ext.P1 application. It started a second unit in the premises mentioned in Ext.P2 licence in the year 2010-11 and thereafter shifted its activities to the present premises as mentioned in Ext.P2 licence in 2013. No activity is now carried out by the company in the premises as mentioned in Ext.P1 application which is of the year 2007 whereas Ext.P2 licence pertains to the year 2015-16. Ext.P6 consent by neighbors also relates to the previous premises which was given by them at the time of establishment of the company in 2004. All these facts are in the knowledge of the petitioner but has intentionally produced the documents relating to the previous premises. Ext.P7 lab report by a private lab of water from an unidentified source has no evidentiary value and urged this Court for dismissal of the writ petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that the present writ petition is gross abuse of the process of the Court, for, the entire documents placed on record is of previous premises. The survey WP(C) NO. 35327 OF 2015 4 number have mentioned without referring to the resurvey number in Ext.P1, which was with regard to previous building No.615. The test report also does not disclose source of the water. An attempt has been made to mislead the court. This Court had issued notice to the respondents as far as back as on 23.11.2015. The petitioner has not been able to place on record either proof of residence of the area or distance from the industry. All these allegations, may be a faint attempt to blackmail the respondent No.2. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is bereft of the merit. I intent to impose a cost of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner to be paid to the respondent No.2 for driving him to the court and wasting the time of this Court. Accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
sab AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 35327 OF 2015
5
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35327/2015
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE APPLICATION
DATED 2/2/2007
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DTD.19/5/2015 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23.6.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.29/6/2015 GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT AND NO OBJECTION FROM NEARBY RESIDENTS P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TEST REPORT DATED 25.5.2015 FROM UBIC ENVIROCARE LAB,PATTURAIKKAL,THRISSUR.
P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.9.2015 ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND NEARBY RESIDENTS.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
Ext.R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL OF CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE RESPONDENT COMPANY ON 28.5.2015 Ext R2(b) TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT OF LICENCE FEE ISSUED BY KOLAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 18.2.2016