[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Charles. T. David,S/O. David vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2026
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2026:KER:1897
W.A. No. 19 of 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 22ND POUSHA, 1947
WA NO. 19 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2025 IN WP(C) NO.27150
OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
CHARLES. T. DAVID,S/O. DAVID,
AGED 63 YEARS,THOPPIL HOUSE, AIKARANAD NORTH
VILLAGE, PERINGOLE KARA, KOLENCHERRY P. O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 311
BY ADV SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001
2 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PATTOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 004
3 THE MEMBER SECRETARY,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,PATTOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
4 THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,PATTOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 004
2026:KER:1897
W.A. No. 19 of 2026
2
5 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 545
6 THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REGIONAL
OFFICE, GANDHINAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 020
7 ITTOOP,
PROPREITOR, M/S. VIJAYA CONSTRUCTIONS,
MYKULANGARA HOUSE, KINGINIMATTOM KARA,
AIKKARANDU SOUTH VILLAGE, KOLENCHERRY P. O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 311
8 AIKARNAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KADAYIRIPPU P. O,
AIKARANAD NORTH,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 311
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.T. NAVEEN-SC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:1897
W.A. No. 19 of 2026
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2026
Soumen Sen, C.J.
The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 20 th
November, 2025 whereby the learned Single Judge, while
deciding a batch of writ petitions, disposed of the writ petitions
by directing the Pollution Control Board to consider the
applications for renewal / consent to operate their existing
units strictly following the guidelines issued by the Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change and the circular
issued by the Pollution Control Board dated 31st July, 2024.
2. The application for renewal of the independent consent
to operate is pending with the Pollution Control Board and the
learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Pollution
Control Board, on instructions, has submitted that the
personal hearing in that regard has been concluded and the
matter is awaiting final orders.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the direction of the learned Single Judge of the
2026:KER:1897
requirement to change the unit from drum-type to batch-type
while considering any fresh application for renewal for future
periods was unnecessary, since the drum-type unit was in
operation causing pollution. However, we are of the view that
the observation of the learned Single Judge cannot be read out
of context, as it clearly says that while considering the
application for renewal of independent consent to operate, the
guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change and the circular issued by the Pollution
Control Board on 31st July, 2024 are to be taken into
consideration.
4. The said observation only seeks to clarify that, if the
drum-type unit does not result in pollution, the same may be
taken into consideration as one of the factors while considering
the application for consent to operate. However, it has been
pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that it has
already been decided that the drum-type operations in respect
of similar units have resulted in pollution and in this regard, he
has referred to documents to show that in respect of self same
unit, there has been an earlier decision of the Pollution Control
2026:KER:1897
Board that the drum-type operation caused pollution. Since the
Pollution Control Board is in seisin of the matter, we are
confident that the Pollution Control Board will take into
consideration all relevant factors while deciding the application
for renewal of the independent consent to operate.
5. We make it clear that we are not inclined to make any
observations on merits and it shall be for the Pollution Control
Board to take a conscious decision after taking into
consideration all the relevant factors. The disposal of the appeal
shall also not prevent the appellant from challenging the final
order of the Pollution Control Board, if it is prejudicial to the
appellant. Since no active opposition is called for, all
allegations are deemed to have been denied.
Sd/-
Soumen Sen
Chief Justice
Sd/-
Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
Judge
vpv
2026:KER:1897
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 19 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P3 English Translation of Exhibit P3.
Exhibit P6 English Translation of Exhibit P6.
Exhibit P12 English Translation of Exhibit P12.
Exhibit P16 English Translation of Exhibit P16.
Exhibit P17 English Translation of Exhibit P17.
