Kerala High Court
Shaiju K.K vs The Secretary, Kolazhy Grama ... on 14 August, 2023
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
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
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
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
