ANSAR Vs. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Ext. P1 and P2 orders issued by the Pollution Control Board and the Air Appellate Authority respectively denying the petitioner the consent to operate a metal crusher unit in the property belonging to the petitioner where he is already having a consent to operate and license to conduct a quarry. The reason for rejecting the consent is on account of the fact that there is a building within 150 meters from the place where the unit is to be put up. The construction is apparently made by the 2nd respondent herein in a property belonging to him. The authorities formed an opinion that when such a construction is available at a distance of 130 meters from the proposed crusher unit and there is no mala fides in the action of the 2nd respondent in putting up the said construction, the consent to establish the unit cannot be granted. It is not in dispute that the second respondent is having a building within a distance of 130 meters in the north west direction of the metal crusher unit. But the contention of the petitioner is that the said construction which is more or less a shed has been put up only for purpose of objecting or obstructing the petitioner from putting up the metal crusher unit. According to the petitioner the very act of putting up such a construction is a mala fide act. The request for constructing such a building was made before the Panchayath only after the petitioner approached the Green Channel Committee seeking permission for putting up the metal crushing unit. Therefore the contention of the petitioner is that the appellate authority did not consider the aforesaid factual situations and had just proceeded on the basis that since the structure is put up within a distance of 130 meters, no permission can be granted. The petitioner places on record the fact that the petitioner had submitted an application before the Single Window Clearance Board on 19.10.2009. The second respondent had submitted an application for building permit on 22.10.2009. The building constructed by the 2nd respondent is only a small structure and Ext. P11 photographs and the Commission Report would show that it is only a single room structure which is no: plastered and covered with temporary sheets without any bathroom and other facilities. The shed is constructed in a property having an extent of 4 acres. There is no evidence to show that the 2nd respondent was having a residential building in the said property and this shed is not intended for any residential purpose but it is put up only to harass the petitioner is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) On a perusal of the photographs at Ext. P11 would indicate that this is not a regular building which is constructed for a regular residential purpose. It is only a shed intended for some temporary residence. That apart the fact that a building permit was applied only on 22.10.2009 after the petitioner had submitted an application for permission before the Single Window Clearance Board itself speak volumes about the mala fide intention of the 2nd respondent in the matter.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the order passed in I.A. No. 450/2010 of O.S. No. 65/2010 by the Munsiff Court, Thaliparamba. The second respondent had filed a suit for injunction to restrain the petitioner from putting up a metal crusher unit in his property. After considering the matter at length, the Munsiff Court had dismissed the said application on a clear finding that the very action of the second respondent is mala fide. It is said that the 2nd respondent had not taken any further proceedings in the matter.