K. SANKARAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P14 proceedings of the third respondent who has declined to renew his licence. The petitioner is conducting a vegetarian restaurant and hotel within the limits of the third respondent. The petitioner's application for renewal of his licence has not been granted for the reason that there has been some complaint against his hotel by one Smt.Meena Limson. On the basis of the complaint, the Municipality conducted an inspection and found that the licence need not be renewed.

(2.) ACCORDING to the counsel for the petitioner Shri.Sreekumar Chelur the petitioner's hotel was not having any facility for the treatment of his effluents. However, in compliance with the directions issued by the second respondent in this regard, it is submitted that the work of installing an effluent treatment plant is in progress. It would take about 45 days for the same to become operational. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate directions for renewal of the petitioner's licence.

(3.) ADVOCATE Santhosh P.Poduval who appears for the 4th respondent, submits that the 4th respondent is an immediate neighbour of the petitioner and the person who bears the brunt of the nuisance caused by the petitioner. According to the 4th respondent, there are two abandoned wells in the petitioner's property, into which the waste generated by the petitioner was being dumped. Though the waste has subsequently been removed after the authorities intervened in the matter, the 4th respondent submits that, the wells are likely to be filled again with such waste which include even septic tank waste. Therefore, he seeks the issue of directions for filling up the abandoned wells. The 4th respondent also objects to a generator that has been installed by the petitioner without proper covering to reduce the noise pollution. Though the Pollution Control Board had directed the same to be covered, it is alleged that the said direction has not been fully complied with. Therefore, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent seeks the issue of appropriate directions so as to ensure that the pollution is contained effectively, without any nuisance being caused to the additional 4th respondent. It is also alleged that the discharge of effluents by the petitioner had resulted in contamination of the well water of the petitioner. Therefore, the water quality of the petitioner's well also requires to be monitored periodically by the said authority.