Kerala High Court
Dr.Jojo Enas vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board
Author: Mohan M.Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan M.Shantanagoudar, Sathish Ninan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938
WA.NO. 946 OF 2016 () IN WP(C).10998/2016
-------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 10998/2016
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
-----------------------
DR.JOJO ENAS
QUEEN MARY HOSPITAL, KONNY.P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA. PIN-689 691.
BY ADVS.SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
MAKKANKUNNU, PATHANAMTHITTA. PIN-689 645.
2. CHAIRMAN
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE KONNI GRAMA PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
KONNY.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. PIN-689 691.
4. MATSYAFED
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
MATSYAFED FISH STALL, KONNI,
PATHANAMTHITTA. PIN-689 691.
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
PATHANAMTHITTA. PIN-689 645.
WA.NO. 946 OF 2016 IN WP(C)NO.10998/2016
6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
PATHANAMTHITTA. PIN-689 645.
ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT IMPLEADED:
--------------------------------
7. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.7 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED
AS PER ORDER DATED 18.07.2016 IN W.A. NO.946 OF 2016
R4 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC, MATSYAFED
R3 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE
R1, 2 BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN.T
R5,6,7 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI M.A. ASIF
R1, 2 BY SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.10.2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
vsv
MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, C.J.
&
SATHISH NINAN, J.
===================================
W.A. No.946 of 2016
===================================
Dated this the 25th day of October, 2016
J U D G M E N T
MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, C.J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.03.2016 passed in W.P(C) No.10998 of 2016 inasmuch as the appellant is aggrieved by direction No.3 issued therein which reads thus:
"However, it is made clear that if no decision is taken so far, the 4th respondent can be permitted to continue till a decision is taken by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board."
It is alleged by the appellant that because of the establishment of the fish stall by the 4th respondent, Matsyafed, bad odor is emanating and consequently it is impossible for him, being a doctor, to run his hospital by the side of the fish stall in question. According to the appellant, since the fish stall is established without following the norms and without getting W.A. No.946 of 2016 -: 2 :- appropriate sanction from the Kerala Pollution Control Board and by violating the norms relating to distance rule, the 4th respondent is not entitled to continue the fish stall.
2. The aforesaid submissions are opposed by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
3. During the subsistence of this appeal, certain interim orders were passed and pursuant to such interim orders, bio filter was installed by the 4th respondent in the fish stall in order to eliminate the odor emanating from there. In that regard, this Court directed the Pollution Control Board to inspect the spot and find out as to whether bio filter is installed and pollution is controlled or not.
4. The concerned officials of the Pollution Control Board visited the spot on 05.10.2016 and found that bio filter is installed. However, they pointed out two minor defects. A report was also filed by the officials of the Pollution Control Board and we have perused the same. It is stated in the report that foul W.A. No.946 of 2016 -: 3 :- smell was not experienced at the time of inspection. However, noise of the blower (which is located outside the stall) connected to the bio filter was high. The official of the 4th respondent who was present at the time of inspection informed that the noise was due to some mistake in the erection and that it will be rectified at the earliest. It was further stated in the report that the enclosure provided in the storing area was inadequate as there were gaps in the enclosure and hence there is chance of fish odor escaping through these gaps and that the height of the exhaust pipe of the bio filter was inadequate. Hence the 4th respondent was directed to raise the height of the exhaust pipe such that it is above the top of the nearest building.
5. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the aforesaid defects pointed out by the Pollution Control Board were rectified and as of now, there are no defects.
6. Be that as it may, it is for the Pollution Control Board, after revisiting the spot to verify as to W.A. No.946 of 2016 -: 4 :- whether the defects pointed out earlier are rectified or not and to take decision on merits and in accordance with law to find out as to whether the 4th respondent shall continue to operate the fish stall or not. Ordered accordingly.
The writ appeal is disposed of with the above observations and directions.
Sd/-
MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN, JUDGE.
Vsv /true copy/ P.S. To Judge