THOMAS MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 4, viz., the State, the Pollution Control Board, the D.M.O. and the Meenachil Grama Panchayat, not to permit the 5th respondent to operate her factory M/s.Rosan Concrete Hollow Block Industry without obtaining licence.

(2.) The Government Pleader on the basis of written instructions from the D.M.O. would submit that the 5th respondent is conducting the factory on the strength of a licence issued by the Meenachil Grama Panchayat (the 4th respondent) the period of which will expire only on 31.3.2007 and that she is having consent from the Pollution Control Board which has been validated upto 31.12.2008. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that an inspection was conducted by the D.M.O. through the Technical Assistant attached to the D.M.O's office and that during that inspection it was seen that raw- materials were stored by the 5th respondent at the southern side of the factory which is just opposite to the petitioner's house and that it was noticed that during the operation of hydraulic machineries, sound with vibration is produced. According to learned Government Pleader, in order to avoid sound and dust pollution, southern and eastern sides of the factory should be permanently closed upto the road level and raw- material should not be stored on the southern side.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner would place before me copy of order No.PCB/KTM/A/389/2006 dated 20.10.2006 issued by the Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board to one Jobin Tom who is the son of the petitioner. On going through this order, it is not seen issued to the 5th respondent or even communicated to the 5th respondent. But obviously the Panchayat has been notified regarding the decision taken by the Pollution Control Board on the basis of a sound level monitoring conducted by the Board on 18.10.2006. In view of the obvious position that the 5th respondent is having licence from the Panchayat for the period upto 31.3.2007, I do not propose to pass any order straightaway restraining the 5th respondent from continuing with the factory. However, the 5th respondent is bound to abide by the directions which are issued by the Pollution Control Board and also by the Public Health authority. Under these circumstances, the Writ Petition will stand disposed of with the following directions:- The 3rd respondent-D.M.O. is directed to communicate to the 5th respondent whatever directions that were found necessary on the basis of the inspection conducted through the Technical Assistant attached to the 3rd respondent's Office. Similarly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent (the Environmental Engineer of the Kottayam District Office of the 2nd respondent) to issue appropriate directions to the 5th respondent which were found necessary on the basis of the sound level monitoring referred to in order No. PCB/KTM/A/389/2006 dated 20.10.2006 issued to Mr.Jobin Tom, son of the petitioner. Both the 2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent will comply with the above directions within two weeks of their receiving copy of this judgment. If it is seen that the 5th respondent has not complied with those directions within three weeks of receiving those directions communicated by respondents 2 and 3, they will take appropriate action under the relevant Statute and the Rules against the 5th respondent.