Against The Judgment In Wp(C) ... vs By Advs
2021 Latest Caselaw 7377 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 7377 Ker
Judgement Date : 3 March, 2021

Kerala High Court

Against The Judgment In Wp(C) ... vs By Advs on 3 March, 2021

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

   WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1942

          Con.Case(C).No.538 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 32514/2017

   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 32514/2017(L) OF HIGH COURT OF
                              KERALA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN WPC

             T.D.JOSEPH,
             AGED 76 YEARS
             S/O. DEVASSY, THANICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
             NEELESWARAM P.O, PIN-683 574

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.P.J.PAULACHAN PUTHUPPARA
             SMT.M.KABANI DINESH

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 IN WPC:

      1      M.A. BAIJU,
             AGED 52, S/O. ARAVINDAKSHAN,
             THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REGIONAL
             OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682 020

      2      K.C. AUGUSTHY
             AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
             KIDANGAN HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O, PIN-683 574

      ADDL   THE MALAYATOOR-NEELESWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
      R3     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEELESWARAM P.O., PIN-
             683 574.

             ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29/11/2019
             IN IA.2/2019.

             R1 BY SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION
             CONTROL BOARD,
             R2 BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
             R3 BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
             R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 03.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                   2

Con.Case(C).No.538 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 32514/2017




                                   JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3rd day of March 2021

This contempt petition is filed complaining

that the directions contained in the judgement

dated 28.09.2018 in W.P.(C).No. 32514/2017 is not

complied with.

2. The subject issue related to a unit

conducted by the 4th respondent in the writ

petition, namely K.C.Augusthy, and the consent

issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board,

with certain conditions to be followed by the unit

owner. In the judgment itself it was found that,

one of the conditions namely, construction of a

compound wall was remaining deficient and

therefore, the 4th respondent sought time to secure

permission from the Secretary of the

Gramapanchayath concerned for constructing a

compound wall and rectifying the deficiency so

noted by the Pollution Control Board. According to

Con.Case(C).No.538 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 32514/2017

the petitioner, the compound wall was not

constructed as is undertaken by the 4th respondent

before this Court, however, the Pollution Control

Board has not taken any action against the unit

owner.

3. The Pollution Control Board has filed an

affidavit before this Court in the contempt

petition, stating as follows at paragraphs 7 and 8:

"7. It is respectfully submitted that the unit had submitted a letter on 03.05.2019 informing that they had rectified the defects shown in the notice issued from District office on 17.04.2019. An inspection was conducted on 20.05.2019 from the Regional Office and it is observed that the unit has satisfactorily provided pollution control facilities as instructed. The unit has covered the boundary of the complainant with brick wall and remaining with the sheet. So the conditions as per the Consent to Operate are complied with by the Unit at that stage. Hence the consent already issued is not revoked and is still valid. If the unit is maintaining the pollution control measures as per the consent to operate satisfactorily there is a least chance of pollution problems.

8. From the above facts it is clear that based on the complaint received from the petitioner, this respondent had conducted inspections, given directions to the concerned District Office and initiated action against the non-compliance. I may also humbly submit that the omissions, if any, occurred from my part are not intentional. Apart from that

Con.Case(C).No.538 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 32514/2017

this respondent had taken all measure to ensure that the unit has complied with all the conditions in the Consent to Operate. It is respectfully submitted that this respondent has utmost respect and diligence for the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court and the inconvenience caused, if any, to this Hon'ble Court in this regard is deeply regretted. Since this respondent has fully complied with the directions of this Hon'ble Court, the contempt proceedings initiated against this respondent may be dropped in the interest of justice."

Taking into account the developments that have

taken place during the pendency of this contempt

petition, I am of the considered opinion that,

nothing remains to be considered, since the unit

owner has constructed the compound wall and is

complied with the conditions imposed by the

Pollution Control Board in the consent order. It is

also clear that the consent given by the Pollution

Control Board is valid upto 2023. Accordingly, this

contempt petition is closed recording the

submissions made by the Pollution Control Board.

Sd/-