K RAJEEV Vs. THRIKKOVILVATTOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts presented in these cases exhibit a classic case of conflict between the residents of an area animated by apprehensions of safety, vis-a-vis the right of individuals to start businesses that are considered to be hazardous.

(2.) The three writ petitions that I am considering in this judgment have commonality in their legal attributes, with the factual situations involved therein being entwined. Since the reliefs in one case would immediately impact the reliefs to be granted in the other, I deem it appropriate to dispose of all these matters by this judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, I treat W.P. (C)No.21461/2016 as the lead case and all reference to parties, documents and materials in this judgment will be as appearing in the said writ petition unless otherwise specially ordered.

(3.) I have heard Sri.K.Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri.Brijesh Menon, appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.21461/2016; Sri.Rahul Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.23221/2016; Sri.T.Naveen, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board; Sri.B.Krishna Mani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Grama Panchayat; Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned Standing Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.