Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.JANARDHANAN, `SREE HARI' versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHAIRMAN OF

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.JANARDHANAN, `SREE HARI' v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHAIRMAN OF - WP(C) No. 13075 of 2007(F) [2007] RD-KL 11353 (27 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 13075 of 2007(F)

1. K.JANARDHANAN, `SREE HARI',
... Petitioner

2. P.DASAN, S/O.KODIYAN,

Vs

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHAIRMAN OF
... Respondent

2. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,

3. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REP. BY

4. KANDALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,

5. R.ANIL, S/O.RAJAPPAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY

For Respondent :SRI.K.ANAND (A.201)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

Dated :27/06/2007

O R D E R

K.M.JOSEPH, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No.13075 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 27th day of June, 2007



JUDGMENT

Case of the petitioners in brief is as follows: Petitioners are residents of Ward No.5 of Kandallur Grama Panchayat. 5th Respondent is alleged to have erected one Coir Fibre separating machine and Coir manufacturing machine using 10 H.P. Electric Motor. The electricity authority has given electrical connection without obtaining any clearance from the Pollution Control Board. The machines were installed for that purpose. The dust emanating from the said machines is creating pollution and using 10 H.P. machine is resulting in noise pollution also. Machines were installed without obtaining permission under Sec. 233. Local residents objected to the said action, but the machines were installed and trial run of the same was started. It is stated to be in violation of the statutory provision.

2. Petitioner approached this court seeking direction to stop immediately the process of manufacturing Coir Fibire and WPC No.13075/07 2 Coir products by the 5th respondent in Sy.No.536/1-A of Kandallur Panchayat and a direction is sought to the fourth respondent not to grant any licence for conducting a Coir manufacturing Unit, using 10 H.P. Motor, and also for installing Willoing Machine under Section 233. A direction is also sought to respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the 5th respondent in starting the Coir Manufacturing unit.

3. Counter affidavit is filed by the fifth respondent. Fifth respondent has produced Exts.R5(a) to R5(f). Ext.R5(a) is produced to show that 5th respondent has constructed a building for Coir spolling. Ext.R5(b) is the letter issued by the fourth respondent granting permission to the fifth respondent for installation of 10 H.P. Motor. Ext.R5(C) is the receipt showing payment of fee for installation of 10H.P. Motor. Ext.R5(d) is the copy of the consent issued by the Pollution Control Board. According to the fifth respondent, R5(d) is valid upto 30-06-2009. Ext.R5(e) is the certificate issued by the Coir Board certifying that the materials used in the manufacturing process undertaken by the fifth respondent does not create pollution. Electricity Board has allocated power as evident from WPC No.13075/07 3 Ext.R5(f), it is stated. It is the case of the 5th respondent that the process of ginning does not require water. It is also stated that fibres are not stored in the unit and are distributed to the sites of spinning and therefore there does not arise any question of smelling or dust.

4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Panchayat, fifth respondent and the learned Government Pleader also.

5. It is not in dispute that the 5th respondent has yet to obtain licence to run the unit from the Panchayat. It is clear that without obtaining licence from the local authority, 5th respondent cannot run the unit. According to the 5th respondent, he has already applied for licence and that is being considered by the Panchayat and what is done is only a trial run. The writ petition is disposed of as follows: In case the fifth respondent runs the unit without obtaining licnece from the Panchayat as required, the fourth respondent Panchayat will use the provisions at its disposal to stop it and prevent the running. In other words, without obtaining licence from the Panchayat, 5th respondent shall not be permitted to run the unit. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the WPC No.13075/07 4 way of the 4th respondent Panchayat taking a decision on the application of the 5th respondent for licence in accordance with law.

(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)

sv. WPC No.13075/07 5


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.