Kerala High Court
Poura Samithi (Edakunni Poura Samathi) vs Nil on 27 April, 2013
Author: A.Hariprasad
Bench: A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
MONDAY,THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/14TH MAGHA, 1935
Crl.MC.No. 3306 of 2013 ()
---------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER NO.C3-65001/2012 OF DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,THRISSUR
PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT IN PROCEEDING BEFORE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POURA SAMITHI (EDAKUNNI POURA SAMATHI)
OLLUR, THRISSUR-680 306, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
SHIJOHN VAZHAPARAMBIL, S/O. KOCHAPPU
RESIDING AT EDAKUNNI, THRISSUR-680 306.
BY ADVS.SRI K.JAYAKUMAR (SENIOR ADVOCATE
SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.N.AJITH
SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
RESPONDENT(S)/NOT PARTIES AND RESPONDENTS IN ANNEXURE-A PROCEEDINGS OF
THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DATED 27.04.2013 (INITIATING PROCEEDINGS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, HIGH COURT COMPOUND
KOCHI-682 031.
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR-680 001.
3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR-680 006.
4. THE SECRETARY
THRISSUR CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE
THRISSUR-680 001.
5. JOBYA.P.
M/S. BEE PEE IMITATIONS, MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
OLLUR, THRISSUR-680 306.
6. USHA SASI
M/S. INDU ORNAMENTS, MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,OLLUR
THRISSUR-680 306.
CRL.MC NO.3306/2013 2
7. MINI SAJAN
M/S. MINI JOB WORKS, XI/840/I, MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
OLLUR, THRISSUR-680 306.
8. RENSON C.R.
M/S. RENU GOLD COVERING, MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
OLLUR, THRISSUR-680 306.
9. M.J.MELVIN
M/S. DOT ENGINEERING, MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,OLLUR
THRISSUR-680 306.
10. K.G.KARUPPU SWAMI
M/S. RAJESH KUMAR ELECTROPLATING
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OLLUR, THRISSUR-680 306.
11. SHIJI GEEVAR
M/S. GOLDEN VIEW PLATING, MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
OLLUR, THRISSUR-680 306.
12. P.V.SUNIL
M/S. TWO STAR DESIGNS GOLD COVERING
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OLLUR, THRISSUR-680 306.
13. PAULSON P.G.
PEE GEE GOLD COVERING, MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,OLLUR
THRISSUR-680 306.
14. PAUL VAZHAKKALA
M/S. ST.JOSEPH ENGINEERING AND GOLD WORKS
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OLLUR, THRISSUR-680 306.
15. BENNY
M/S. ANNA PLASTICS & ELECTROPLATING WORKS
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OLLUR, THRISSUR-680 306.
16. M.J.OBRIN
M/S. DASH MACHINERIES, MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OLLUR
THRISSUR-680 306.
17. JOBY FRANCIS
M/S. PRATHEEKSHAALUMINIUM POLISHING ELECTRO COLOURING UNITS
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OLLUR, THRISSUR-680 306.
18. NIJU JOSE
M/S. ST.JOSEPH COLOUR COATS, MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
OLLUR, THRISSUR-680 306.
19. P.V.SATHYAN
UNITED ALUMINIUM COMPANY, MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
OLLUR, THRISSUR-680 306.
20. ANTO RAPPAI
M/S. HONEST ELECTRO COLOURING
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OLLUR, THRISSUR-680 306.
CRL.MC NO.3306/2013 3
21. I.J.RAPHY
M/S. THREE STAR ELECTRO PLATING
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OLLUR, THRISSUR-680 306.
22. T.A.DAVI
M/S. BRIGHT PRECURED SYSTEM NO.1
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OLLUR, THRISSUR-680 306.
23. T.A.GEORGE
MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. BRIGHT PRECURED SYSTEM NO.2
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OLLUR, THRISSUR-680 306.
R4 BYADV.SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN,STANDING COUNSEL,THRISSUR CORPORATION
R5 TO R23 BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI REJI JOSEPH
R3 BY SRI. M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL, KERALA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.01.2014,
THE COURT ON 03.02.2014 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 3306 of 2013 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
ANNEXURE A : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C3-65001/2012 DTD.27.4.2013 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2.
ANNEXURE B : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C3-65001/2012 DTD.3.5.2013 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2.
ANNEXURE C : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.19.6.2013 IN CRL.RP NO.1033/2013
.
ANNEXURE D : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.30.7.2013 NO.C3-65001/2012 ISSUED
BY RESPONDENT NO.2.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
---------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
C.R.
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.3306 of 2013
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of February, 2014.
ORDER
Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "Cr.P.C.").
2. Prayer in the petition reads as follows:
"It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the above Criminal Miscellaneous Case and modifying the decision of the District Magistrate, Thrissur, pass an order deleting direction No.6 in Annexure-D order."
3. Facts of the case, put shortly, are as follows:
Proceedings No.C3-60051/2012 pending before the District Magistrate, Thrissur relate to the action initiated under Section 133 Cr.P.C. against the industrial units of respondents 5 to 23 located in the major industrial estate at Ollur. According to the petitioner, the industrial units have caused extensive pollution. Wells within a radius of 1 k.m. of the estate have been rendered unfit for human use. The District Magistrate, taking note of the complaints made by the petitioner and the residents of Crl.MC No.3306/2012 2 the area, report of a sub committee and report of the officers of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, initiated proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. 19 units in the industrial estate, arrayed as respondents 5 to 23, were ordered to be closed down by a preliminary order issued under Section 133 Cr.P.C. The units were required to show cause why closure order should not to be made absolute. They were asked to appear on 10.05.2013 at 11 a.m. in the chamber of the District Magistrate. Annexure-A is the true copy of Order No.C3-65001/2013 dated 27.04.2013 issued by the District Magistrate, Thrissur.
4. On 03.05.2013, the District Magistrate, suo motu and without advancing the proceedings posted to 10.05.2013 and also without notice to the parties, vacated the order dated 27.04.2013 insofar as it related to 8 units. Annexure-B is the true copy of the order dated 03.05.2013 in the above matter. Petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.1033 of 2013 challenging the order dated 03.05.2013 terminating the proceedings in respect of 8 units. This Court as per Annexure-C order allowed the revision and directed the District Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law. After the said order, the District Magistrate posted the matter to 08.07.2013 to hear the answering respondents. Petitioner had no notice of hearing on the proceedings. Therefore, no objection could be filed. No documentary or oral evidence was adduced on behalf of respondents 5 to 23. As directed by the District Magistrate, petitioner appeared and contended that the Crl.MC No.3306/2012 3 matter must be tried as a summons case. It was adjourned to 20.07.2013. On that day, certain witnesses were examined. Although evidence was recorded, the District Magistrate passed Annexure-D order completely disregarding the mandate of law. Hence they approached this Court for the reliefs stated above.
5. Contesting respondents filed a counter affidavit. They contended that the petition is filed by concealing material facts. Respondents 5 to 23 have filed W.P.(C) No.7695 of 2013 before this Court seeking police protection in respect of the obstructions caused by the petitioner. It was directed that 19 industries belonging to respondents 5 to 23 shall not carry on gold plating and allied business until a favourable order is given by the District Magistrate. Annexure-R5(b) is the judgment of this Court in the writ petition. The industrial estate is a registered organization. There are 120 small scale industrial units functioning inside the major industrial estate. This is one of the major projects in Thrissur District. The industrial estate was started in 1957 under the control of the Union Government. After formation of the Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (SIDCO), the industrial estate was transferred to SIDCO and thereafter they supervised the activities of the industrial estate. They do not permit any activity other than industrial activity inside the estate. There is absolutely no pollution caused on account of the activities of small scale industrial units in the estate. In fact, Crl.MC No.3306/2012 4 when the major industrial estate was established in 1957, there was no residential building anywhere near the precincts of the estate. Contesting respondents alleged that certain politicians started spreading a false propaganda that the industries in the estate which use acid caused health problems in that area. Respondents contended that such an apprehension is baseless. The Pollution Control Board granted permission to industries after ensuring the sufficiency of safety measures taken by the industrial units. Under the aegis of certain politicians, some people created problems, which resulted in the initiation of proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. by the District Magistrate. In fact, Annexure-A notice itself was without proper jurisdiction. Pursuant to Annexure-A notice, an inspection was carried out by the Environmental Engineer. After satisfying that there was proper treatment of the waste materials in 8 out of 19 industrial units, 2nd respondent granted permission to the said 8 units to carry on operation by Annexure-B order. It was set aside by this Court as per Annexure-C, holding that the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent was not in compliance with Section 133 Cr.P.C. Annexure-C order passed by this Court must be read conjointly with Annexure-R5(a) interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. After passing Annexure-C order, 2nd respondent proceeded to hear the petitioner as well as the 19 industrial units on 10.05.2013, 24.05.2013, 07.06.2013 and 15.06.2013. 2nd respondent directed the monitoring committee, constituted to inspect the Crl.MC No.3306/2012 5 waste treatment facilities of the said 19 units, to report the state of affairs. Report of the monitoring committee was to the effect that 16 out of 19 units have complied with the direction in Annexure-A. Respondents contended that the power exercised by the 2nd respondent is not purely judicial and Annexure-D order is not a judicial order. Annexure-D order passed by the 2nd respondent indicated certain concrete measures for the units to comply with to avoid the criticism about pollution. There is no challenge against the measures directed to be taken as per Annexure-D. Only objective of the petitioner, that the units shall not function anymore, cannot be countenanced. Hence the Crl.M.C. is sought to be dismissed.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that Annexure-D order is legally unsustainable and it does not conform to the standard of a final order to be passed under Section 138 Cr.P.C. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the District Magistrate failed to consider that she has to handle the matters involved in the case as in a summons case. Annexure-D order thus shows flagrant violation of the procedural and substantive law. It is the allegation that the District Magistrate has not taken evidence as mandated by the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents contended that Annexure-D is only in the nature of an interim order issued pending proceedings. Annexure-D is not intended to be a final order and Crl.MC No.3306/2012 6 the case is not disposed by Annexure-D. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents further contended that the directions given in Annexure-D order are only meant to monitor the steps in the abatement of alleged nuisance.
8. Proper understanding of the nature of proceedings and the duties cast on an Executive Magistrate, while dealing with such matters, are relevant for the resolution of the dispute.
9. Relevant part of Section 133 Cr.P.C., applicable to our case, is excerpted hereunder:
"133.Conditional order for removal of nuisance.- (1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers-
(a) (omitted)
(b) that the conduct of any trade or
occupation, or the keeping of any goods or
merchandise, is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community, and that in consequence such trade or occupation of the community, and that in consequence such trade or occupation should be prohibited or regulated or such goods or merchandise should be removed or the keeping Crl.MC No.3306/2012 7 thereof regulated;
(c) to (f) (omitted) such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance, or carrying on such trade or occupation, or keeping any such goods or merchandise, or owning, possessing or controlling such building, tent, structure, substance, tank, well or excavation, or owning or possessing such animal or tree, within a time to be fixed in the order-
(i) (omitted)
(ii) to desist from carrying on, or to
remove or regulate in such manner as may be
directed, such trade or occupation, or to remove such goods or merchandise, or to regulate the keeping thereof in such manner as may be directed;
(iii) to (vi) (omitted)
or, if he objects so to do, to appear before
himself or some other Executive Magistrate
subordinate to him at a time and place to be fixed by the order, and show cause, in the manner hereinafter provided, why the order should not be made absolute."
It is evident that the power can be exercised either on receipt of a police report or on other information and it arises out of the six circumstances enumerated in the Section, of which we are only concerned with the conduct of any trade or occupation causing injuries to health or physical Crl.MC No.3306/2012 8 comfort of the community. Such a situation can result in a conditional order. The order can be served as if it is a summons as per Section 133 Cr.P.C. On the service being effected, the person concerned may carry out the order in which case the proceedings will come to an end. If the person against whom the order is issued does not fulfil the conditions, then he has to show cause against the order or apply to the Magistrate to try the matter to see whether the order is reasonable and proper (Sections 135(b) and 138(b) Cr.P.C. respectively). Trial herein should be done as in a summons case. Section 136 Cr.P.C. empowers the Executive Magistrate to make the order absolute, if the person does not comply with the order and fails to appear before the Magistrate. The same Section shows that he may also be prosecuted under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC"). If a person successfully shows cause, the order is discharged; but if the cause shown is not satisfactory, the order is made absolute as is clear from Section 138 Cr.P.C. A conjoint reading of Sections 138 and 139 Cr.P.C. will make it clear that the Magistrate may, if a person against whom an order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is made appears before him or contests the existence of any public right before him, direct a local investigation or summon and examine any expert for the purpose of enquiry under Section 137 or Section 138 Cr.P.C. Section 141 Cr.P.C. proclaims that when an order is made absolute under Section 136 or Section 138 Cr.P.C. the person so directed will be called upon to carry it Crl.MC No.3306/2012 9 out within a specified time and if he fails to do so, he can be prosecuted under Section 188 IPC. It is also open to the Magistrate to effectuate the order and recover costs from the defaulter (Section 141(2) Cr.P.C.). When one finds that these are the powers of the District Magistrate, the only question remains to be resolved is whether the District Magistrate herein has failed in her legal duties.
10. On a careful reading of Annexure-D, it is evident that the District Magistrate has not passed the order after appreciating the evidence as in a summons case, as required under Section 138(1) Cr.P.C. District Magistrate has mentioned in her order that after Annexure-C order was passed by this Court, she called a meeting of the representatives of the "Poura Samithi" and the respondents on 06.07.2013. The Chairman, Kerala State Pollution Control Board also attended the meeting. It appears from the order that there was a discussion about the issues faced by the petitioner vis-a-vis the requirement of the contesting respondents to restart the business. It is also seen from Annexure-D that the District Magistrate visited the industrial estate on the same day and verified the measures taken by the industrial units for alleviating pollution. In Annexure-D, the District Magistrate further states that on 08.07.2013 she heard all the 19 respondents. Annexure-D shows the formation of a monitoring committee for working in tandem with the Pollution Control Board. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents argued that the monitoring committee Crl.MC No.3306/2012 10 consists of people's representatives, responsible officers and the residents of the locality. In the impugned order, the District Magistrate has made following six guidelines:
"1. Any sludge deposited underground earlier has to be completely cleared from that area to the satisfaction of the Monitoring Committee.
2. The doubt of the Pourasamithi that effluent leakage may still happen has to be cleared. For this the companies have to keep the effluent collection tanks on raised platforms so that any leakage can be easily identified.
3. The effect of the pollution will take two to three years to get nullified. Tests for detecting all the pollutants identified are to be conducted once in every three months by the Pollution Control Board and the results published in their website till the effects are nullified. The local people shall co-operate for this.
4. The Monitoring Committee set up shall inspect the 19 industries once in every three months and ascertain if the tanks are leaking.
5. Till the effect of pollution is over, the 19 companies have to provide water to the population affected by the pollution as ascertained by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, @ 70 lpcd. They may stop this when Kerala Water Authority extend water supply to this area.
6. The companies may start functioning once Crl.MC No.3306/2012 11 any sludge deposited underground is removed, the tanks are arranged on raised platforms and arrangements are made not to let out any effluent to the ground. This shall be done to the satisfaction of the monitoring committee. The Monitoring Committee shall inspect and submit report on its findings to this office within 14.08.2013."
This Court granted a stay of operation of direction No.6 in Annexure-D order, whereby the contesting respondents are disabled from reviving their units. Annexure-D order does not satisfy the essential requirements of a final order under Section 138 Cr.P.C. It is evident that the contesting respondents had entered appearance before the District Magistrate and tendered evidence. Therefore, as required in Section 138 Cr.P.C. the District Magistrate is bound to proceed with the matter as in a summons case. As none of the conditions mentioned above is satisfied in Annexure- D, it cannot be qualified as a final order under Section 138 Cr.P.C.
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied on Balwant Rai v. Chhangi Ram (AIR 1963 Punjab 124) to contend that an order finally deciding a case must be a self-contained one and it should be what is called a speaking order. In that decision, H.R.Khanna, J. (as His Lordship then was) observed that the order must briefly give the facts of the case and embody the reasons for the decision arrived at, lest it should be open to challenge that the Judicial Officer making the order did not Crl.MC No.3306/2012 12 apply his mind to the facts of the case or that the order is capricious and arbitrary. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Krishna Jillai Bhaskaran Nair v. Varghese Samuel (1975 Cri.L.J.104) to argue the following proposition:
" If the person against whom the show cause summons is served, appears and files objections, the Magistrate should not dispose of the case under Section 136 but should take evidence and satisfy himself that the order passed by him is reasonable and proper. Even in cases the person concerned does not pursue his objections the complainant should lead evidence on his side and should not leave the Magistrate to base his order on materials placed before him when the preliminary order was passed. Neither the reports of the Tahsildar nor police papers relating to the case nor evidence produced while passing order under Section 133 are substitutes for the taking of evidence under Section 137."
12. Yet another decision of this Court in S.Sujatha v. A.Prema (2005 Cri.L.J. 3262) is also cited to argue that the Executive Magistrate is bound to follow the procedure provided under Section 138 Cr.P.C. when he is finally disposing of the case. Bombay High Court in Vasant Manga v. Baburao Bhikanna (1979 Cri.L.J. 526) held that the terms "as in a summons case" show that it cannot be decided merely on the basis of Crl.MC No.3306/2012 13 affidavits and opportunity must be given to the parties to lead evidence. Apex Court in Gobind Singh v. Shanti Sarup (AIR 1979 SC 143) ruled that the final order passed cannot go beyond the scope of the conditional order. However, the facts and circumstances in that case are totally different from that in this case.
13. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents drew my attention to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.7695 of 2013 (Annexure-R5(b)). It is passed in a matter wherein the association of the contesting respondents approached this Court for police protection impleading the petitioner and other respondents. Division Bench disposed the matter with following directions:
"11. In such view of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition with the following directions;
(1) That if the petitioners succeed in getting
the stay order passed by this Court in
Crl.M.C.No.3306/13 vacated, the 16 units mentioned in Ext.P12 will be allowed to revive their activities as permitted therein, which shall also be subject to the condition that the units comply with all the conditions imposed in Ext.P12.
(2) Subject to this, if any obstruction or other problem is created by respondents 5 to 8 or any body else, it would be open to the petitioners or affected members to report the same to respondents 2 and 3, in which event, they shall afford adequate Crl.MC No.3306/2012 14 and effective police protection for the smooth functioning of the units and also to ensure free ingress and egress of willing workers.
(3) Although in this writ petition, petitioners have sought police protection for the normal functioning of the other units in the industrial estate, from the order dated 28th of June, 2013, we note that the counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 8 have given an undertaking , which has been recorded thus;
"In the above circumstances, it is necessary, as an interim measure, the respondent police have to give necessary assistance and protection to 101 industries against whom there is no complaint or any prohibitory proceedings; during the pendency of these Writ Petitions. Meanwhile, Mr.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel representing the party respondents categorically submits, there is no obstruction of any nature so far as the other 101 industries, against whom no allegation of any water pollution is made. In other words, they are not involved in the proceedings under 133 Cr.P.C. It is pertinent to mention that even with regard to other 19 industries involved in gold plating and allied business, the party respondents cannot take law into their hands and create nuisance. It is further necessary to mention that the District Executive Magistrate should see that these 19 industries will not carry on their gold plating and allied business when the prohibitory Crl.MC No.3306/2012 15 proceedings are pending till a clean chit is given by the District Collector."
In view of the above, it is not necessary to deal with that grievance of the petitioners and therefore we refrain from doing so."
14. As stated above, on a perusal of the impugned order of the District Magistrate, I am legally not satisfied that it can be treated as a final order. Albiet that, it gives certain guidelines to prevent causation of pollution from the industrial units and abate nuisance to the general public. The reports submitted by the Pollution Control Board and that of the monitoring committee can be taken only as pieces of evidence to be looked into for the final disposal of the matter as provided in Section 138 Cr.P.C. It is not clear as to whether sludge deposited underground has been removed as stipulated in condition No.6 in Annexure-D. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents vehementally argued that the attempt of the petitioner is to see that the units run by respondents 5 to 23 are closed down permanently or they are forced to shift to some other place. According to the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, it is their fundamental right to do business in the industrial estate, of course with reasonable restrictions for abating nuisance, if any, caused by the establishments. Powers under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and other provisions thereafter shall not be used to ruin business establishments running for a long period before eruption of the dispute. At the same time, learned Crl.MC No.3306/2012 16 Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that no person can claim a right to pollute the premises in the guise of running a business and to cause nuisance/injury to the persons in the neighbourhood. Definitely, there must be a balance between peaceful life of the people in the locality residing close to the business premises and the right of the contesting respondents to do trade or business. Annexure-D order, if viewed as an interim arrangement pending disposal of the proceedings, can be justified on the ground that it may give an opportunity to the District Magistrate to monitor the steps needed to be taken for abatement of nuisance. However, proceedings shall not be allowed to continue endlessly on the basis of interim orders. Therefore, I find that the matter should be finally decided within a time frame.
In the result, Crl.M.C. is disposed with following directions:
Annexure-D, the impugned order, need not be modified as it is not a final order. The District Magistrate, Thrissur shall take urgent steps to ascertain whether condition Nos.1 to 5 in Annexure-D order have been complied with. Regarding condition No.6 in Annexure-D order, it is made clear that no blanket permission can be granted to the industries to function without adhering to the safety norms already prescribed and additionally to be prescribed, if found necessary. Therefore, if other conditions have been fulfilled, then the industries shall be allowed to function on a trial basis and the 2nd respondent shall evaluate the situation Crl.MC No.3306/2012 17 before final disposal of the matter. For final disposal of the matter, the parties on both sides should be afforded opportunities to adduce further evidence, if any, touching the compliance of the directions in Annexure-D order. After considering the entire evidence on record, the District Magistrate shall dispose of the matter as provided in Section 138 Cr.P.C. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of production of this order.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks