JOSHY VARGHESE Vs. PURAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is stated to be running a metal crusher unit from 1996 onwards. In the writ petition, he has produced as Ext.P1 a copy of the D&O license that was issued to him, which was valid till 31.03.2018, Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate from the Medical Officer, Ext.P3 Factories License, Ext.P4 consent from the Pollution Control Board valid till June 2018 and Ext.P5 dealers license for dealing in quarrying materials from his premises. It is the case of the petitioner that, notwithstanding the obtaining of licenses and permits from the statutory authorities concerned with the task of regulating the activities of the petitioner, he was served with Ext.P6 stop memo by the respondent Panchayat, wherein the sole ground for directing a stoppage of the activities of the petitioner is stated to be the fact that the Panchayat had received complaints from persons in the locality regarding the manner in which the petitioner was carrying on the activities. It is aggrieved by Ext.P6 stop memo that the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondents 4 to 6 got themselves impleaded stating that they are persons, who had preferred the complaints before the respondent Panchayat and on the basis of which, Ext.P6 stop memo was issued by the Panchayat. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the said respondents, various documents have been produced to suggest that the complaints raised against the unit of the petitioner had resulted in various notices issued to the said Unit by the Pollution Control Board in the past, and it was alleging an inaction on the part of the Panchayat to take steps against the petitioner based on the said reports obtained from the Pollution Control Board, that the said respondents had chosen to produce those documents along with their counter affidavits, in the present writ petition. I note that, during the pendency of the writ petition, through interim orders, this Court had directed the 3rd respondent to file a statement before this Court, after causing an inspection to be made in the crusher unit of the petitioner, to see whether the petitioner was complying with the conditions imposed by the Pollution Control Board, while operating the crusher unit. A report had since been filed by the Pollution Control Board pursuant to the interim orders of this Court, including the interim order dated 15.01.2018, where this Court had directed the Pollution Control Board to carry out a fresh inspection to ascertain whether the petitioner can be permitted to operate his unit without breaching any of the conditions in the consent issued or without committing any violation of statutory provisions under the Environmental Protection Act and Rules. Through the report filed by the Board, it is stated that the Unit of the petitioner is not functioning on account of the stop memo issued to it, but the unit has taken steps to comply with all the directions that had been insisted by the Pollution Control Board as part of the pollution control measures in the unit. It is stated that, the only work that remains to be done is the completion of an approach road to the Unit, where the tarring work has to be completed over a length of ten metres. It is also stated that the ambient sound could not be measured to see whether it was transgressing the limits prescribed under the Environmental Protection Act and Rules, since the Unit is not functioning pursuant to Ext.P6 stop memo.

(2.) Taking note of the said report filed on behalf of the Pollution Control Board, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions: