KUTTAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are stated to be residents in the area within the territorial limits of the 4th respondent Panchayath, state that the 6th and 7th respondents had started a small scale industry in the neighbourhood, allegedly without obtaining necessary licences from the statutory authorities concerned. In the writ petition, the prayer is for quashing Ext.P13 consent variation order that was issued by the Pollution Control Board in favour of the 6th and 7th respondents, and for a direction to the 2 nd respondent to conduct a fresh inspection of the industrial unit in question to ascertain the sound level emanating from the activities of the said unit. There is a further prayer to direct the 4 th respondent not to renew the licence issued to the 6th and 7th respondents.

(2.) The facts in the writ petition would indicate that in an earlier round of litigation initiated by the petitioners and others, there was initially an interim order passed directing the Secretary of the Panchayath to implement a stop memo that was issued against the 6th and 7th respondents and to stop the activities in the unit of the said respondents if the stop memo has not been varied or altered. The said interim order was subsequently vacated by an order of this Court after finding that the reports of the Pollution Control Board that were called for by this Court and indicated that the 6th and 7th respondents had complied with the conditions insisted by the Pollution Control Board and finding that there was no reason to prevent them from operating the units, pending disposal of the writ petition. The writ petition itself was finally disposed, by Ext.P15 judgment, taking note of the fact that the Pollution Control Board had granted consent to the 6th and 7th respondents and also that the Panchayath had also issued necessary D & O licence to the said respondents for the year in question. In the present writ petition, the case of the petitioners is essentially that despite the directions and observations in Ext.P15 judgment, the Pollution Control Board as well as the Panchayath are taking steps to renew the consent as also the D & O licence to the petitioners notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners have ample material to suggest that the 6th and 7th respondents are not complying with the directions in the consent orders passed in respect of 6th and 7th respondents.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 6th and 7 th respondents wherein the averments in the writ petition are denied and it is stated that consequent to the judgment of this Court in the earlier round of litigation the 6th and 7th respondents have been carrying on all the conditions in strict conformity with the permissions in the consent and licence issued to them by the statutory authorities. A Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners denying the said averments in the counter affidavit of the respondents 6 and 7 and producing materials which, according to the petitioners would suggest that the 6th and 7th respondents are carrying on their activities without complying with the said conditions insisted by the statutory authorities.