RAHEL ABRAHAM Vs. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P16 Integrated Consent to Operate, renewed by the Pollution Control Board of the 3rd respondent, thus enabling him to conduct a Solid/Hollow Bricks Manufacturing Unit under the name and style "M/S.P.S.Group Hollow Bricks", at Pambakkuda.

(2.) According to the petitioner, Ext.P16 has been obtained by the 3rd respondent by making incorrect assertions and producing false documents before the Pollution Control Board and therefore, that the same be directed to be withdrawn; and the said respondent be injuncted from continuing with his activity any further.

(3.) Sri. N. Raghuraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, commenced his submissions by showing me that in Ext.P2 Consent to Establish, the 3rd respondent was directed to maintain a minimum set back of ten metres between the boundary of his property and the building, so as to utilises the said area for development of a green belt. The learned counsel says that the petitioner appears to have preferred a sketch before the Pollution Control Board at that time to show that he has left the said set back, but that this is factually incorrect, as is evident from Ext.P3(a) sketch, which he himself produced before the Panchayat to obtain regularisation of the construction. Sri.Raghuraj says that, as is manifest from Ext.P3(a), the set back shown therein is only 4.5 metres; while in Ext.R4(a) - which is the sketch produced by the Advocate Commissioner in a suit filed by his client in the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha, namely O.S.No.292 of 2015 - the set back had been found to be only 4 metres. He, therefore, says that the assertion of the 3rd respondent, based on which Ext.P16 Consent to Operate had been renewed was made deliberately knowing it to be false; and that, therefore, the said consent now looses validity in law.