Kerala High Court
M/S.Sns Complete Green Solutions vs State Of Kerala on 9 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.10467 OF 2020(G)
PETITIONERS:
1 M/S.SNS COMPLETE GREEN SOLUTIONS,
VENDUVAZHI, KARUKADOM POST, KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM-686691, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY
ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR.NAJEEB NALIYATHU SALIM.
2 MR.NAJEEB NALIYATHU SALIM.
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.SALIM, NALIYATHU HOUSE, ENANALLOOR.P.O.,
KADUMPIDI, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.DILIP
SRI.R.PRADEEP
SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695001.
2 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL),
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683101.
3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE (SHO),
MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686661
4 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686661
5 KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686691,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
6 THE SECRETARY,
KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686691.
WP(C).No.10467 OF 2020(G) 2
7 HEALTH SUPERVISOR,
HEALTH DIVISION, KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686691.
8 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT OFFICE-I, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN-682020.
9 HASSAN IKKARAKUDY,
ASHARI COLONY, VENDUVAZHI, KOTHAMANGALAM-686691.
10 SATHYAN PLAVUNIKKUMKALAYIL ANUGRAHA,
ASHARI COLONY, VENDUVAZHI, KOTHAMANGALAM-686691.
11 BIJU,
MOLEKAROT, ASHARI COLONY, VENDUVAZHI,
KOTHAMANGALAM-686691.
12 BYJU,
MOLEKAROT, ASHARI COLONY, VENDUVAZHI,
KOTHAMANGALAM-686691.
13 BINISH,
PARAMBIL, ASHARI COLONY, VENDUVAZHI,
KOTHAMANGALAM-686691.
14 RAJESH,
VATTASSERIYIL, VENDUVAZHI, KOTHAMANGALAM-686691.
R5-7 BY SRI.PEEYUS A KOTTAM, SC, KOTHAMANGALAM
MUNICIPALITY
R8 BY SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD,
R9-14 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE
R9-14 BY ADV. SMT.M.SANTHY
SMT SHEEJA CS SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.10467 OF 2020(G) 3
JUDGMENT
The 1st petitioner 'SNS Complete Green Solutions' is a partnership firm
constituted for converting poultry slaughter waste into organic fertiliser by using
air and odour control process. Their factory is situated in a property having a total
extent of 2.5 Acres falling in Sy No.1354/1C within the limits of Kothamangalam
village. The 2nd petitioner is the managing partner of the firm.
2. The firm has applied for and obtained an acknowledgment certificate
under the Kerala Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019 and
consequent thereto, they have been issued with Ext.P10 deemed licence by the
General Manager, DIC, Ernakulam. In view of the above, the petitioner firm has a
three year window period to obtain sanction and permit from the Local Self
Government Institution. The petitioner states that Ext.P3 Consent to establish has
been issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board which is valid till
02.12.2024.
3. According to the petitioner, while so, based on some frivolous
complaints, Ext.P4 notice was issued to the petitioner by the 7th respondent, the
Health Supervisor of the Kothamangalam Municipality directing the petitioner to
close down the factory. The notice was issued on the premise that the petitioner
has commenced operation and that a foul smell was emanating from the factory.
It is contended that the respondents 10 to 13 had filed W.P.(C).No.10453 of 2020
before this Court and this Court by Ext.P8 judgment had directed the Pollution
Control Board as well as the local authority to conduct independent inspection and
to ascertain as to whether the petitioner has been carrying out operation without
obtaining valid permits and licences. It is contended that no notice was served to
the petitioner in the said writ petition and they were not in a position to appraise
the true facts before this Court.
4. The petitioner asserts that they have not commenced operation in
the factory and they were completing the construction on the strength of the
Consent to establish issued by the PCB and also the acknowledgment certificate
issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre.
5. The petitioner states that on 16.05.2020, the respondents 9 to 13
entered the compound of the factory and committed mischief by destroying the
bio-security fencing of the hatchery. Though a complaint was lodged before the
police, the 4th respondent instead of providing assistance to the petitioner,
ordered the petitioner to refrain from proceeding with the construction works. It
is contended that due to the intimidatory tactics adopted by the petitioner, the
work has come to a standstill.
6. The petitioner contends that pursuant to orders issued by this Court
in the earlier writ petition an inspection was conducted by the Environmental
Engineer and directions were issued to employ additional control measures. The
entire directions were complied with and after inspection the Pollution Control
Board has issued Consent to operate the unit on 29.10.2020.
7. According to the petitioners, they have the constitutional right to
pursue the business activity in tune with the rules and regulations and the party
respondents have no right to interfere with the same. It is in the afore
circumstances, the petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction to the
respondents 2 to 4 to afford adequate protection to the 2nd petitioner to establish
and run the 1st petitioner Industrial Unit in Sy No.1354/1C of Kothamangalam
village on the strength of Ext.P9 and P10 permits issued by the authorities.
8. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 9 to 14 wherein
they assert that the petitioners had commenced the operation of the Unit without
obtaining permits and Consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board. It is
contended that based on their complaint, the Health Supervisor had conducted an
inspection and found that they had commenced operation without obtaining
permit from the local authority. It is further stated that the revenue authorities
had also carried out an inspection and the Tahsildar has issued directions to the
Inspector of Police, Kothamangalam as is evident from Ext.R10(e) to stop the
functioning of the unit. It is further contended that pursuant to directions issued
by this Court in W.P.(C).No.10453/2020, the petitioners were called for a hearing
and though it was pointed out by the party respondents that no steps have been
taken by the petitioners to take corrective measures, no action was taken either by
the PCB or by the local authority.
9. I have heard Sr T. Krishnanunni, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners as instructed by Sri C. Dileep, Sri Abraham P. George,
the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, Sri T. Naveen, the
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 8th respondent, Sri Peeyus A Kottam,
the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 7 and the
learned Senior Government Pleader.
10. The records reveal that the 1st petitioner Unit has been issued with
an acknowledgment certificate under the Kerala Micro Small and Medium
Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019 . Exhibit P2 is the certificate issued by the
General manager, DIC. In that view of the matter, there is no requirement at this
stage for the 1st petitioner to obtain any sanction or permit from the Local
Authority. The main grievance of the party respondents is that the petitioner has
operated the unit without a consent to operate from the Pollution control board .
The records would reveal that a Consent to establish was issued by the PCB which
is valid till 2.12.2024. Pursuant to directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ
petition, an inspection was conducted by the Environmental Engineer and
additional control measures were suggested. From the statement dated 29.3.2021
filed before this Court by the Environmental Engineer, it is apparent that the unit
has complied with all the requirements and after inspection Exhibit R-8(b) Consent
to operate has been issued to the Unit on 29.10.2020. In that view of the matter,
there cannot be any objection from either the official respondents or by the party
respondents to the running of the Unit in compliance with the directions issued by
the PCB.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submitted
that they had moved the statutory authorities only when it was noticed that steps
were being taken to operate the Unit without obtaining the clearance. Though it is
contended by the party respondents that the petitioners had operated the Unit,
the said assertion is vehemently denied by the petitioner . Now that the petitioner
has obtained all requisite clearances and permits, no obstruction can be caused by
the party respondents to the running of the Unit. If any obstruction is caused, it is
for the petitioner to approach the 3rd respondent who shall take effective steps to
ensure that the Unit is permitted to continue its operation without any obstruction
or hindrance from the party respondents.
In the result, this Writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to
approach the respondents No.3 if any obstruction is caused to the construction
activities and the operation of the unit by the party respondents in Sy No 1354/IC
of Kothamangalam Village. If any complaint is received, the respondents 2 to 4
shall ensure that the petitioner is able to run the unit without any threat or
obstruction from the party respondents. The 8th respondent shall conduct routine
inspection at monthly intervals for the first three months of full fledged
commencement of the unit and thereafter as per their own guidelines to ensure
that the petitioners conform to all the directions and stipulations issued by the PCB
while granting the consent to operate the unit.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
ps
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED
OF THE FIRST PETITIONER FIRM DATED
2.8.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ACKNOWLEDGE
CERTIFICATE DATED 20.2.2020 ISSUED
GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES
CENTRE, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CONSENT TO ESTABLISH
DATED 3.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 8TH
RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE DATED
27.4.2020.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
18.5.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.06.2020
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF W.P.(C) 10453/2020
FILED BY THE 10TH AND 13TH RESPONDENTS
ALONG WITH ONE MR.JAYESH IS PRODUCED
BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT
EXHIBIT P8 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
RENDERED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT ON
28TH MAY 2020
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CONSENT TO
OPERATE/AUTHORIZATION/REGISTRATOIN DATED
29.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ALONG WITH
CERTIFICATE DATED 04.02.2021 ISSUED BY
THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES
CENTRE, ERNAKULAM
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R8(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
10.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE PCB
EXHIBIT R8(b) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE
DATED 29.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE PCB
EXHIBIT R8(c) TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORTS
DATED 11.06.2020 & 21.10.2020 FORWARDED
TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT
