Rajan vs Harees A.M
2021 Latest Caselaw 1983 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

    TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942

     Con.Case(C).No.2169 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 13023/2020
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.07.2020 IN WP(C) 13023/2020(C) OF
                      HIGH COURT OF KERALA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P(C):

             RAJAN
             AGED 43 YEARS
             S/O.EMMANUEL, 'EMMANUEL', SHEEMAMULA JUNCTION,
             VENGODE P.O., VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
             SHRI.MELWIN BYJU

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.2 IN w.p(c):

             HAREES A.M
             FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
             ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION
             CONTROL BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT OFFICER,
             PLAMOODU, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
             PIN CODE. 695 004



             SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC FOR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Cont. Case (Civil) No.2169 of 2020
          in
W.P (C) No.13023 of 2020
                                         2




                          ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
                 ==================================
                    Cont. Case (Civil) No.2169 of 2020
                                    in
                       W.P (C) No.13023 of 2020
                 ==================================
                         Dated this the 19th day of January, 2021

                                     JUDGMENT

The aforecaptioned contempt of court case has been filed

alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court in

Annexure-A1 judgment dated 01.07.2020 in W.P(C) No.13023/2020

filed by the petitioner herein.

2. Heard Sri.Shajin S.Hameed, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner in the COC / petitioner in the W.P(C) and Sri.T.Naveen,

learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board

appearing for the respondents in the COC / R2 in the W.P(C).

3. This Court has rendered Annexure-A1 judgment dated

01.07.2020 in the above W.P(C) and paragraph Nos.3 & 4 thereof,

reads as follows :

"3. The case of the petitioner is that, the contesting respondent No. 3 is conducting a furniture unit causes serious air Cont. Case (Civil) No.2169 of 2020 in W.P (C) No.13023 of 2020

pollution and noise pollution issues and based on the complaint, the 2nd respondent Kerala State Pollution Control Board had conducted inspection and found that no consent has been obtained from them for the functioning of the said unit of the 3 rd respondent and has also issued certain directions in Ext.P1 dated 16.04.2016 shall not been complied with by the 3rd respondent so far. Now the 3 rd respondent is running the said unit without the consent of the 2 nd respondent and even after the expiry of the licence granted by the 1 st respondent Grama Panchayath and that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 complaint dated 03.06.2020 before the 1st respondent etc.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances it is ordered in the interest of justice that, 2 nd respondent Environmental Engineer of the District Office of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board will take up the matters raised in Ext.P1 and may ensure that the inspection is conducted in respect of the unit of the 3rd respondent with due prior notice to the 3rd respondent and the petitioner and then may ascertain as to whether the 3 rd respondent is conducting the unit after obtaining the consent from the 2nd respondent and licence from the 1 st respondent and may also ascertain about the air pollution and noise pollution etc., and then should ensure that the copies of the inspection report are given to both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and thereafter should afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and then should take a considered decision on the matters without much delay preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment."

4. Sri.T.Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala

State Pollution Control Board appearing for the respondent-Officer

would submit on the basis of instructions that in proper compliance of

the directions issued by this Court in the above W.P(C), two inspection

notices were issued to both the petitioner and R3 in the W.P(C) and

the first such inspection of the wooden furniture and the factory unit Cont. Case (Civil) No.2169 of 2020 in W.P (C) No.13023 of 2020

of the 3rd respondent in the W.P(C) was conducted by the respondent

on 20.08.2020 and subsequent inspection was also conducted on

21.08.2020 and such inspections were so duly conducted to assess and

monitor the noise levels in the said unit and also to monitor the

measurement of particulate matter in the unit. The said inspection

disclose that the unit does not comply with the distance criteria as well

as the permissible noise levels, as in the prescribed norms and

inspection report was also drawn up and given to both the petitioner

and R3 in the W.P(C). Later, a hearing was also conducted by the

respondent-Officer on 26.08.2020 and the versions of both the

petitioner and R3 were also heard. Thereafter, Annexure-A2 minutes

dated 04.09.2020 of the said hearing was furnished both to the

petitioner and the 3rd respondent in the W.P(C) and order was also

issued by the respondent-Officer on 11.09.2020, so as to direct R3 in

the W.P(C) to close down the unit due to non-observance of the

abovesaid norms. Subsequently, yet another inspection was also

conducted by the respondent-Officer on 24.12.2020, which reveal that

the unit is still functioning despite the closure order. That thereupon,

the respondent-Officer has passed a second closure order dated Cont. Case (Civil) No.2169 of 2020 in W.P (C) No.13023 of 2020

28.12.2020 directing R3 in the W.P(C) to close down the unit. Further

that, the respondent-Officer has also furnished a copy of the said

closure orders to the Panchayath Secretary of the Karakulam Grama

Panchayath, which is the local grama panchayath.

5. In the light of these aspects, Sri.T.Naveen, learned

Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board

appearing for the respondent-Officer would submit that the

respondent-Officer has faithfully and effectively taken all possible

steps to comply with the directions and orders passed by this Court in

Annexure-A1 judgment and that if the 3rd respondent in the W.P(C)

continues to disobey the directions in the closure order issued by the

Pollution Control Board, then the same cannot be the basis to allege

contempt of court action against the respondent-Officer. Further

that, unlike the provisions contained in the Kerala Panchayath Raj,

which empowers the Panchayath Secretary to seek the aid and

assistance of the police authorities concerned to implement lawful

orders passed by the panchayath, such provisions are not provided in

the enactments under which the State Pollution Control Board has to

function and that there is a provision in the Air (Prevention and Cont. Case (Civil) No.2169 of 2020 in W.P (C) No.13023 of 2020

Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 empowering the Pollution Control Board

authorities to instruct the Electricity Board authorities concerned to

disconnect the electricity connection, if there is disobedience of closure

order passed by the Pollution Control Board authorities concerned, etc.

Further, it is now not known after the issuance of the second closure order,

as to whether the 3rd respondent in the W.P(C) is still functioning the unit

despite the closure orders and after inspection, if any such activity is noted,

then the respondent-Officer or the competent authority of the State

Pollution Control Board as the case may be, may consider taking recourse

to the provisions quoted hereinabove.

6. After hearing both sides, this Court is not in a position to hold

that the respondent-Officer has in any manner willfully disobeyed the

directions and orders passed by this Court. But on the other hand, he has

taken effective steps to comply with the directions in the judgment.

Recording the abovesaid submissions of the respondent-Officer, the

above contempt of court case will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

vgd Cont. Case (Civil) No.2169 of 2020 in W.P (C) No.13023 of 2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1/7/2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.13023/2020 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT

ANNEXURE A2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4/9/2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT