JOSE BHASKARAM Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri.R.T.Pradeep, counsel for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner who is a neighbour of the 5th respondent is that the 5th respondent who was given consent by the writ petitioner to conduct welding activities in the premises taken on lease by the 5th respondent is now conducting welding business in a much bigger way by engaging several persons and now his activities extend even to the frontyard of the writ petitioner's house. These allegations are very stiffly resisted by the 5th respondent.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the 5th respondent as well as learned standing counsel for the Pollution Control Board also. The Counsel for the Pollution Control Board submitted that on an inspection conducted by the Pollution Control Board, it was noticed that the fifth respondent to a certain extent is conducting welding activities even outside the enclosure of the room and therefore he has been strictly directed to confine his exercises to within the four walls of the room and he has also been directed to seek consent from the Pollution Control Board.

(3.) Sri.V.Manu, counsel for the 5th respondent submitted that it was on the basis of Exhibit P4 complaint submitted by the writ petitioner that the Pollution Control Board conducted an inspection and issued Exhibit R5(b) order. All the directions in Exhibit R5(b) order has been complied with by the 5th respondent. Sri.R.T.Pradeep, counsel for the petitioner would highlight before me all the difficulties that are being experienced by the petitioner and his family, not only from the 5th respondent but also from the workers who are being engaged by the 5th respondent. Mr.Manu immediately reported to the above submission that only three workers are being engaged and none of them are causing any harassment whatsoever to the petitioner or to any member of the petitioner's family.