Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SAROJINI. W/O.LATE RAMAN versus P.S.NAVAS ,PULICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SAROJINI. W/O.LATE RAMAN v. P.S.NAVAS ,PULICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE - WP(C) No. 12286 of 2007(K) [2007] RD-KL 17244 (12 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 12286 of 2007(K)

1. SAROJINI. W/O.LATE RAMAN,
... Petitioner

2. T.M.ABDUL AZEEZ,

Vs

1. P.S.NAVAS ,PULICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
... Respondent

2. NELLIKUZHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NELLIKUZHI,

3. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

4. THE SENIOR ENVIORNMENTAL ENGINEER,

5. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.BABY

For Respondent :SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :12/09/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

.......................................................... W.P.(C) No. 12286 OF 2007 ...........................................................

DATED THIS THE 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2007



JUDGMENT

Sri.P.V.Baby, counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the interim order dated 10.4.2007 and submitted that pursuant to that order, the District Medical Officer has filed a report which will show that the allegations of the petitioners are substantially correct. Counsel therefore requested that an interim order be passed restraining the Panchayat from issuing licence and the Pollution Control Board from issuing any consent to the 1st respondent for operating the proposed hollow brick manufacturing unit lest the petitioners as well as the children attending the Madrassa which is situated at a distance of just 39.5 metres from the proposed unit should suffer from pollution.

2. Mr.P.K.Muhammed, counsel for the 2nd respondent- Panchayat would refer to the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.17851 of 2007 and submit that the said judgment relates to the very same industry and this Court has relegated the parties to the civil court. According to Mr.Muhammed, in view of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.17851 of 2007, the present petitioners also will have to W.P.(C) No. 12286/07 be relegated to the civil court.

3. Mr.M.K.Chandramohan Das, Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board would submit that the consent presently granted to the 1st respondent is only consent to establish the unit and that consent to operate will be granted only after the possibilities of the unit generating pollution are assessed.

4. Even though the party-respondent has been served with notice by special messenger, he has not entered appearance before this Court. Thus, the averments in the Writ Petition, so far as they are against the 1st respondent, stands established by non-traverse. However, I am of the view that this Court will not be justified in considering the grounds on their merits, in view of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.17851 of 2007. I dispose of the Writ Petition itself issuing the following directions:- The petitioners are directed to approach the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha by filing appropriate impleadment application in O.S.No.158 of 2007. If the petitioners file any such application before the Munsiff's Court, that court will implead the petitioners as additional parties and permit them to raise whatever contest they want to, regarding the hollow brick manufacturing unit proposed to be commenced by the 1st respondent. The petitioners are permitted W.P.(C) No. 12286/07 to take advantage of the report submitted by the D.M.O. in this Writ Petition, in support of their prospective contentions in that suit. However, in view of the above directions and in view of the situation that the 1st respondent has not resisted the averments in the Writ Petition before this Court and the practically conceded position that the unit has not become operative, I restrain the 2nd respondent- Panchayat from issuing any licence in favour of the 1st respondent for conducting the hollow brick manufacturing unit for a period of two weeks from today. Similarly, I restrain the 4th respondent from issuing any consent to operate the unit to the 1st respondent for the said period. If any application for interim relief restraining the 1st respondent from operating the unit or the statutory authorities from issuing licence or consent is pending before the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha, that court will implead the petitioners also as parties in that application and dispose of that application at the earliest. It is also open to the petitioners to file fresh interlocutory applications seeking appropriate interim reliefs in which case such applications will be disposed of by the learned Munsiff giving top priority.

tgl (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

W.P.(C) No. 12286/07


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.