Kerala High Court
B.V. Balakrishna Pai vs Corporation Of Cochin
Author: C.T.Ravikumar
Bench: C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/4TH CHAITHRA, 1936
WP(C).No. 3341 of 2013 (P)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------
B.V. BALAKRISHNA PAI
SARAWATHI NIVAS, 42/2249, VALAVI ROAD
HOUSE NO ARA 81, KOCHI 682018
BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER PETER
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------
1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN
COCHIN - 682 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
COCHIN - 682 020
3. SRI.SANTHOSH GEORGE,
ETTUKANDATHIL HOUSE, VALAVI ROAD, KOCHI 682018.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION
R2 BY ADV. SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
R3 BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
R3 BY ADV. SMT.P.V.PARVATHI
R3 BY ADV. SMT.REENA THOMAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG
WITH W.P.(C)NO.8425 OF 2014 ON 25-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 3341 of 2013 (P)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.08.10.2012.
EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.10.11.2012 BEFORE THE PCB.
EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.05.12.2012 NO.PCB/EKM/DO-1/GEN-
05/2011.
EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BEFORE THE FIRE AND
RESCUE SERVICES.
EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.26.11.2012 BEARING NO.C NO.502/12.
EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 05.12.12 BEARING
NO.MOH15/PIO/31093/12.
EXT.P8: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE QUESTIONS PUT FORWARD BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.
EXT.P9: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P10: PHOTOCOPY OF MEMORANDUM OF CONSENT OF THE NEIGHBOURS
PRODUCED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P11: THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.4.2013 ISSUED BY THE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER (HEALTH)
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY SRI.B.V.BALAKRISHNA PAI
EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH IN THE YEAR
1996-1997.
EXT.R3(b): COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF RENEWAL OF
THE LICENCE FOR THE YEAR 2012-2013.
EXT.R3(c): COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED FROM THE KSEB FOR THE
WORKSHOP DATED 1.3.2013.
EXT.R3(d): COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED FORM THE KSEB FOR THE
ORKSHOP DATYED 1.4.2013.
EXT.R3(e): COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED FROM THE KSEB FOR THE
WORKSHOP DATED 2.5.2013.
EXT.R3(f): COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED FROM THE KSEB FOR THE
WORKSHOP DATED 1.7.2013.
WP(C).No. 3341 of 2013 (P)
EXT.R3(g): COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED FROM THE KSEB FOR THE
WORKSHOP DATED 5.8.2013.
EXT.R3(h): COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED FROM THE KSEB FOR THE
WORKSHOP DATED 2.9.2013.
EXT.R3(i): COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED FROM THE KSEB FOR THE
WORKSHOP DATED 2.10.2013.
EXT.R3(j): COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED FROM THE KSEB FOR THE
WORKSHOP DATED 1.11.2013.
EXT.R3(k): COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL ISSUED FROM THE KSEB FOR THE
WORKSHOP DATED 2.12.2013.
EXT.R3(l): COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 6.2.2013 ISSUED BY THE
CORPORATION OF COCHIN TOWARDS THE PROPERTY TAX.
EXT.R3(m): COPY OF THE RECEIPTS DATED 6.2.2013 ISSUED BY THE
CORPORATION OF COCHIN TOWARDS THE PROFESSIONAL TAX.
EXT.R3(n): COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE
SSI REGISTRATION ALONG WITH THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE.
EXT.R3(o): COPY OF THE CONSENT OF THE NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY
SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT BEORE THE CORPORATION.
EXT.R3(p): COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DATED 23.2.2012.
EXT.R3(q): COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY TE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DATED 25.7.2013.
EXT.R3(r): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT (TAKEN AS COMPLAINT NO.226/2012) OF
THE CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.
EXT.R3(s): COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT
SEEKING RENEWAL OF LICENSE FOR THE CURRENT PERIOD.
EXT.R3(t): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.1.2014 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD.
EXT.R3(u) COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER ENCLOSING THE DOCUMENTS
CALLED FOR BY THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER OF THE
SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXT.R3(v): COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 5.2.2014 OF THE SECOND
RESPONDENT.
// TRUE COPY //
TKS
P.S.TO JUDGE
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
----------------------------------
W.P.(C)Nos.3341 of 2013 and
8425 of 2014
-----------------------------------
Dated 25th March, 2014
JUDGMENT
The issues involved in these writ petitions are intertwined and interrelated and therefore, these writ petitions are taken up for joint hearing and disposal. The parties are referred to hereinafter in this judgment in accordance with their status in W.P.(C)No.3341 of 2013. The petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.3341 of 2013 against the noise pollution emanating from the workshop being run by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to close down the workshop of the third respondent. The third respondent who filed the latter writ petition challenges Ext.P6 order and seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P7, referred as such in W.P.(C)No.8425 of 2014 and to grant renewal of the licence. Earlier, in the former writ petition, this Court passed an interim order on 28.1.2014. As per the said order, the first respondent was directed to take steps in accordance with law to stop the functioning of the workshop being run by the 3rd respondent in the name and style `Geena Engineering' without a valid consent to operate from the second WP(C).Nos.3341/2013 & 8425/2014 2 respondent. Virtually, the said order was subsequently modified as per order dated 14.2.2014 taking note of the fact that the third respondent had filed an application for getting consent to operate. As per the said order dated 14.2.2014 the second respondent was directed to consider the application for grant of consent to operate submitted by the third respondent within the time stipulated thereunder. Pursuant to the said direction the second respondent considered the application submitted by the third respondent for consent to operate and granted consent to operate as per Ext.P5, referred as such in the latter writ petition. At the same time, prior to the issuance of Ext.P5 consent to operate and subsequent to the interim order dated 28.1.2014 in the former writ petition the D&O licence issued to the third respondent was cancelled. The 3rd respondent submitted Ext.P7(a) application, referred as such in the latter writ petition, on the strength of Ext.P5. From the facts thus expatiated above it is evident that Ext.P6 order cancelling the D&O licence was issued subsequent to the order dated 28.1.2014 passed by this Court in the former writ petition. True that Ext.P6 order referred as such in the latter writ petition was passed prior to the passing of the order dated 14.2.2014 in the former writ petition. At the same time, the contention of the third respondent is that before cancelling the D&O licence as per Ext.P6 order dated 6.2.2014 he was not put on notice. This fact is not in dispute. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the WP(C).Nos.3341/2013 & 8425/2014 3 position that a D&O licence issued to a person could be cancelled only with notice to the grantee. It is also to be noted that subsequent to the order dated 28.1.2014 virtually this Court issued another order in the former writ petition on 14.2.2014. As per the said order the second respondent was directed to consider the application for grant of consent to operate submitted by the third respondent. Such a consideration pursuant to the said order dated 14.2.2014 virtually, results in Ext.P5 order whereby a consent to operate was granted in favour of the third respondent. In the said circumstances, taking into account the fact that D&O licence was cancelled by the first respondent evidently taking into account the fact that the third respondent was not having a valid consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board and taking note of the fact that pursuant to the order dated 14.2.2014 passed in the former writ petition Ext.P5 consent to operate was granted by the Pollution Control Board and that the order cancelling the D&O licence dated 6.2.2014 was issued without notice to the third respondent, W.P.(C)No.8425 of 2014 is disposed of as hereunder:-
Ext.P6 order dated 6.2.2014 is set aside. Ext.P7 application submitted on the strength of consent to operate issued by the Pollution Control Board viz., Ext.P5 shall be considered by the first respondent and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon expeditiously, at any WP(C).Nos.3341/2013 & 8425/2014 4 rate, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the former writ petition submitted that even if ultimately D&O licence is restored/issued the third respondent shall be permitted to run the workshop only in tune with the conditions in Ext.P5. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the fact that the third respondent is bound to run the workshop, if permission is granted pursuant to these directions, strictly adhering to the conditions in Ext.P5. In the said circumstances, no further orders are called for in W.P.(C)No.3341 of 2013. Accordingly, it is closed with the above observation.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS