P THANKAKUTTY Vs. K SUGATHA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 6th respondent in the writ petition, Smt.P.Thankakutty, has filed this appeal to challenge the judgment dated 20.3.2017 in the W.P(C).8619/08. She is the wife of K.Sudhakaran, the third respondent in the writ petition, who was the proprietor of a flour mill by the name 'Dhanya Floor Mill' at Chowara, Neyyattinkara Taluk. In the writ petition, the challenge is against Ext.P6 order of the Air Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, where the licensee was in appeal. That appeal was filed under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, to challenge the Ext.P3 order dated 30.6.2004 of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, because the consent to operate the mill was denied.

(2.) The appellate authority, under the Ext.P6 order, considered the circumstances of the case, but was unable to reach a definite conclusion on the correctness of the negative decision. Thus, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Pollution Control Board for fresh disposal, after due inspection with notice to the licensee K.Sudhakaran, the third respondent in the writ petition.

(3.) Aggrieved by the Ext.P6 decision of the Air Appellate Authority, one K.Sugatha Kumari, residing within the neighbourhood of the flour mill, filed the writ proceeding and it came to light during the said proceeding that the licensee K.Sudhakaran had expired. The learned Judge accordingly said that since the licensee had expired, the licence for the flour mill cannot inure to the benefit of anyone else, including his wife. Thus it was observed that if the wife intends to operate the flour mill, she cannot do so on the strength of Ext.P6 order, but will have to apply fresh and obtain licence in her own name as the flour mill was being operated exclusively in the name of the third respondent, until he died. With such observation, the writ petition was closed, granting liberty to the aggrieved party to pursue her remedies in the writ proceeding.