Subair M vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 12727 Ker

Kerala High Court

Subair M vs State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2024

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

W.P.(C).No.9774/2017
                                 1


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
   TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 9774 OF 2017
PETITIONER:

             SUBAIR M
             AGED 40 YEARS
             S/O KOYA HAJI, MUTHANIKKAT HOUSE, KOTT,TIRUR (PO),
             PIN:676101, TIRUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

             BY ADV SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ



RESPONDENTS:

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
             DEPARTMENT-695001.

     2       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
             MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505.

     3       THE TIRUR MUNICIPALITY
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TIRUR (PO),
             PIN:676101, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

     4       THE SECRETARY
             TIRUR MUNICIPALITY, TIRUR (PO),
             PIN:676101MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

     5       THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
             DISTRICT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, 19/269
             A,PERINTHALMANNA ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM
             (PO),PIN:676505 MALAPPURAM.

     6       THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER MALAPPURAM
             MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505.
 W.P.(C).No.9774/2017
                                 2

     7       THE HEALTH INSPECTOR KUTTIPPURAM
             KUTTIPPURAM (PO), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679571.

     8       MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA
             PROPRIETOR OF SHAHANA RICE FLOUR AND COCONUT
             MILLS/O SAIDALIKUTTY, KIZHAKKUMBATT HOUSE, TIRUR
             (PO),TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676101.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.NIRMAL. S
             SRI.P.VENUGOPAL, SC, TIRUR MUNICIPALITY
             SMT.VEENA HARI
             SAYED MANSOOR BAFAKHY THANGAL



OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP, SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC




       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).No.9774/2017
                                       3




                        P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                     = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                         W.P.(c).No.9774 of 2017
                    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                   Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024

                                 JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following

reliefs:-

"a)Issue a writ of Mandamus of any appropriate writ or direction, directing the respondents 2 to 7 to take immediate action against the 8th respondent's flour mill named "Shahana Rice flour and Coconut Mill" and immediate measures to close down the above establishment.

And

b) Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioner may pray from time to time. "

2.The main grievance of the petitioner is that there is a

Rice flour and Coconut mill functioning very close to the

residential house of the petitioner, which is conducted by the 8 th

respondent, causing disturbance to his house.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

counsel appearing for the 8th respondent and also the learned

counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the 8 th respondent

submitted that the Municipality considered the grievance of the

petitioner and found that there is no pollution as alleged by the

petitioner as per proceedings dated 30.09.2016.

5. The Pollution Control Board also takes me to Exhibit P5

in which it is stated that the consent to operate is given after

inspection of the property.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even

as per the averment in Exhibit P5 it is clear that there is

residential house in the prohibited distance from the flour mill.

Considering that also the Pollution Control Board issued the

consent to operate. In such circumstances, no orders can be

passed in this case. If there is any pollution in future, the

petitioner can approach the statutory authorities with

appropriate representation and if such representation is

received, the statutory authorities will do the needful in

accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner and the 8 th

respondent. With the above observation, this writ petition is

disposed of.

Sd/-

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, Judge

sj22/5/24

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9774/2017

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEORE THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 27.5.2016.

EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFIORE THE DEPUTY SUPREINTENDENT OF POLICE DATED 1.6.2016.

EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 27.5.2016.

EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 6.2.2017.

EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 13.7.2016.

EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.2.2016.

EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE COLOR PHOTO OF THE PETITIONERS HOUSE AND THE 8TH RESPONDNT ESTABLISHMENT