SUKUMARAN Vs. PADMALOCHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in these cases centre around an industrial unit manufacturing Hollow bricks using cement. W.P. (C) No. 22385 of 2012 and W.P. (C) No. 16388 of 2013 are filed by the very same petitioner who is residing close to the industrial unit. According to the petitioner, the functioning of the unit causes both sound pollution as well as air pollution rendering the life of the petitioner and the other nearby residents, insufferable. He had been objecting to the grant of licence to the factory, from the very inception. However, the allegation is that, without considering his objections in the proper perspective and in gross violation of the provisions of law, licence has been granted by the Panchayat and consent to establish and operate the unit has been granted by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. The petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 22385 of 2012 challenging the consent to establish Ext. P4, the consent to operate Ext. P10 and Ext. P12 decision of the Panchayat to renew the licence in respect of the unit. W.P. (C) No. 1638 of 2013 is a Writ Petition filed by the very same petitioner through another counsel, during the pendency of the earlier Writ Petition challenging Ext. P4 proceedings, by which the Panchayat has renewed the licence in respect of the industrial unit. The unit is situate within the local limits of the Kanakkari Grama Panchayat.

(2.) The petitioner had filed yet another Writ Petition W.P. (C) No. 9760 of 2013 seeking a direction to consider a representation submitted by him against renewing the licence in respect of the industrial unit and further seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Panchayat not to renew the licence in respect of the unit The said Writ Petition was disposed of by me by judgment dated 08.04.2013, directing the representation to be considered within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment after hearing the person conducting the industrial unit also. However, when the petitioner produced the said judgment before the Panchayat, the Secretary issued a stop memo directing the industrial unit to stop functioning until the question of renewal of its licence was decided. In view of the said development, Review Petition No. 363 of 2013 has been filed by the 4th respondent in the Writ Petition, the person who is conducting the industry, seeking a review of the judgment. As per an, interim order dated 3.5.2013, the stop memo issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat has been stayed. The said interim order is in force.

(3.) Since the Writ Petitions as well as a Review Petition relate to objections against functioning of the very same industrial unit, these cases have been heard together and are also being disposed of together. W.P. (C) No. 22385 of 2012 is treated as the leading case and the parties and the documents produced are referred to in the manner in which they are described in the said Writ Petition.