ANNAMMA ABRAHAM Vs. KUTTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Senior citizen and a permanent resident in Ward No.V of Kuttloor Grama Panchayat. He has approached this Court aggrieved by the alleged pollution caused on account of the operation of a hollow brick manufacturing unit by the 5th respondent in an adjacent property. In the writ petition, it is pointed out that, on account of the activities of the 5th respondent, there is a noise pollution noticed in the area as a result of which, the petitioner is put to serious inconvenience and medical problems. In the writ petition, the petitioner relies upon Ext.P8 notice issued by the Pollution Control Board to the 5th respondent to suggest that the activities of the 5th respondent are not being carried out in accordance with the consent granted to the said respondent by the Pollution Control Board. The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the Panchayat as also the Pollution control Board to cancel the licence/consent issued to the 5th respondent in connection with the conduct of the hollow brick manufacturing unit.

(2.) In a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent Pollution Control Board, it is stated that subsequent to Ext.P8 notice issued to the 5th respondent, an inspection was conducted in the premises of the 5th respondent sometime in May 2016, when the respondents found that the 5th respondent had since cured the defects pointed out in Ext.P8 notice. The conclusion of the 3rd respondent Board, after the inspection, is that the unit of the 5th respondent has complied with the norms directed by the Board and that the pollution control measures provided are adequate. The Board has also produced as Ext.R3(c), the fresh consent to operate that was granted to the 5th respondent, which indicates that the consent under which the 5th respondent is currently operating is valid till 30.06.2018. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 5th respondent, the said respondent has produced copies of the Dangerous and Offensive (D and O) licence obtained from the respondent Panchayat as also the consent obtained from the Pollution Control Board to contend that the activities are carried on in strict compliance with the statutory norms.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel for the 1st respondent Panchayat, the learned Standing counsel for the 3rd respondent Pollution Control Board and also the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find from a perusal of the documents produced along with the counter affidavits of the 3rd respondent and the 5th respondent, that the consent to operate the unit of the 5th respondent has now been renewed till 30.06.2018. It is also brought to my notice by the learned Standing counsel for the 1st respondent Panchayat that the D & O licence for the year 2017-2018 has not been granted to the 5th respondent, although the 5th respondent had applied for the same. The non-consideration of the application is stated to be on account of the pendency of this writ petition. Taking note of the apprehension of the petitioner in the writ petition with regard to the possible noncompliance by the 5th respondent with conditions 4.14, 4.15 and 5.3 in the consent issued to the said respondents, I deem it in the interests of justice to dispose the writ petition with the following directions: