P H RUKHIYA BEEVI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second respondent, who is the Secretary of the Marady Grama Panchayat, had issued a notice to the petitioner on 25.2.2004 asking her to show cause as to why the industrial activities carried on by her in the 6th ward (Ward No.2) of the Panchayat should not be stopped and the licence cancelled, since she had not obtained the No Objection Certificate (consent) from the Pollution Control Board, as stipulated in the licence. The petitioner, by Ext. P4, had given a detailed reply, but by Ext. P5 dated 4.3.2004, she had been advised that since the complaints were subsisting, she was obliged to produce a certificate from the Pollution Control Board, latest by 10.3.2004. The Writ Petition had been submitted by the petitioner pointing out that even though there was no pollution as alleged, a certificate had been applied for from the Pollution Control Board, and in the meanwhile enforcement of Exts.P3 and P4 orders should be interdicted. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Pollution Control Board, by Exts. P8 and P12, had passed orders on 3.5.2004 and 2.6.2004 refusing to give consent to operate the unit. These also have been subjected to challenge. The colour of the Writ Petition as also reliefs prayed for have thereon changed substantially.

(2.) The petitioner submits that a lawful industry, which was being carried on from December, 2001 by a woman entrepreneur giving direct employment to 7 persons and indirect employment to 20 persons will have to be closed down, notwithstanding the circumstance that heavy investments have been made and the establishment has been authorised to function by the competent authorities. It is submitted that the steps for preventing her from conducting the business is engineered by the 5th respondent without any jurisdiction and this Court should come to her rescue exposing arbitrariness practised by the Pollution Control Board in dealing with such matters.

(3.) Smt. Santhamma Issac had appeared for the petitioner, Sri. Philip Mathew had entered appearance for the second respondent - Panchayat, Mr. Vijai Mathews had represented the cause of the 5th respondent, who was a resident of the Panchayat, close to the industrial unit, and I had also heard Sri. Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha for the third respondent - Pollution Control Board. Statements and affidavits had been filed by the parties, in support of their respective stand. The Panchayat to a certain extent, Pollution Control Board and the private respondent have joined together for contending that the illegality of running of the unit is plain and it is absolutely essential that its functioning is to be stopped forthwith.