Kerala High Court
Saseendran vs Purakkad Grama Panchayath on 23 February, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO.44055 OF 2025
1
2026:KER:16151
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 44055 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
1 SASEENDRAN
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O RAGHAVAN, PUTHENPARAMBIL (H), THOTTAPPALLY MURI,
PURAKKAD P.O., AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688561
2 SAJIMOL
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O VISWAN, VETHUVI PARAMBIL (H), PURAKKAD P.O.,
AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688561
3 VISWAN
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O RAJAPPAN, VETHUVI PARAMBIL (H), PURAKKAD P.O.,
AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688561
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.REJI
SHRI.M.V.THAMBAN
SMT.THARA THAMBAN
SRI.B.BIPIN
SRI.ARUN BOSE
SMT.JEENA A.V.
SHRI.ARJUN R.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 PURAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH
PURAKKAD P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, PIN - 688561
2 THE SECRETARY
PURAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PURAKKAD P.O, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT, PIN - 688561
WP(C) NO.44055 OF 2025
2
2026:KER:16151
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
AMBALAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN
- 688561
4 BHASURA
PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, THOTTAPPALLY MURI, PURAKKAD
P.O., AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688561
5 PRASANTHI
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O SUNDARESHAN, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, THOTTAPPALLY
MURI, PURAKKAD P.O., AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN -
688561
6 ADDL.R6: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,DISTRICT OFFICE,
ALAPPUZHA, MINI CIVIL STATION COMPOUND, ALAPPUZHA,
KERALA, PIN - 688001 * ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS
PER ORDER DATED 30.01.2026 IN I.A.1/2025 IN WP(C)
44055/2025.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ABDUL KHADER KUNJU S.
SHRI.A AL FAYAD
GP SMT PREETHA K K, SRI T NAVEEN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.44055 OF 2025
3
2026:KER:16151
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P(C) No. 44055 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"i) to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order directing respondents 1 to 3, to take appropriate action against the illegal construction and functioning of the peeling shed therein.
ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order directing respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the illegal construction and functioning of the peeling shed therein, accumulation of waste and causing foul of its bad smell in the locality.
iii) to issue such other further reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
iv) To dispense with the English translation of vernacular documents.
v) Allow the writ petition with cost."
[SIC]
2. The petitioners are aggrieved because respondents 1 to 3 are not taking further action based on the stop memo issued against respondents 4 and 5 for the alleged illegal construction and the illegal conduct of peeling shed by them without obtaining any permit/license. It is submitted that respondents 4 and 5 are the neighbouring property owner of the petitioners. Respondents 4 and 5 constructed a building WP(C) NO.44055 OF 2025 4 2026:KER:16151 in their property and the said building is now being used by them as prawns peeling shed. It is submitted that the illegal functioning of the peeling shed therein and the accumulation of waste therein is causing foul smell as well as filth in the locality. The petitioners filed complaint before the 1st and 2nd respondents against the illegal construction and functioning of the peeling shed therein, accumulation of waste and foul smell in the locality, is the submission. It is further submitted that the Panchayat is not taking any action. The petitioners are also aggrieved because no further steps are taken after Ext.P3. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent and the learned Government Pleader. Even though notice was issued to the 4 th respondent, there is no appearance for the 4th respondent.
4. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration before this Court on 30.01.2026, this Court passed the following order:
"The additional 6th respondent will inspect the premises mentioned in the Writ Petition and submit a report before this court, whether there is any pollution, because of the peeling shed in the area.
The report shall be placed on record within a period of three weeks.
Post on 23.02.2026. "
WP(C) NO.44055 OF 2025 5 2026:KER:16151
5. Now, a report is submitted by the Environmental Engineer, Pollution Control Board. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above report:
"2. In compliance with the interim order of this Hon'ble Court dated 30.01.2026, an Inspection was conducted on 13.02.2026 at the premises of the unit operated by the 4th and 5th respondents, located at Purakkad Grama Panchayath, Ambalappuzha Taluk, Alappuzha. At the time of inspection, 5 th Respondent along with the unit representatives were present. The unit was not operational, and the representatives informed that the activity carried out in the unit is peeling of prawns, which has not been functioning for the past few weeks. The findings of the inspection are submitted below:
a. The walls of the unit were only temporarily enclosed. No permanent walls were provided.
b. Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) was not provided for treatment and disposal of the trade effluent from peeling. The Effluent was being collected to a tank and was discharged to outside through a flexible hose.
3. It is submitted that Fish processing and packing (excluding chilling of fishes) comes under the Orange Category as per the categorisation of the Board. For Orange Category Industrial Small-Scale establishments with capital investments less than Rs.5 crores, the minimum distance specified to the nearest residences and public buildings are 10 metres and 15 metres respectively. During the inspection, the distances measured from the unit to two neighbouring residences were found to be more than 10 metres, and no public buildings were located within 15 metres of the unit, thereby satisfying the distance criteria prescribed by the Board. However, as the unit is situated near to the sea, compliance with the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) norms need to be considered by the appropriate WP(C) NO.44055 OF 2025 6 2026:KER:16151 authority. During the inspection, the unit representatives did not produce certificates related to CRZ compliance, nor were they able to furnish any agreement for the disposal of peeling waste generated by the unit. They informed that the peeling waste was being taken away by the parties who deliver the prawns for peeling. The unit premises were found to be clean, and no waste was observed discarded in the immediate vicinity of the unit.
Since the Unit was observed to be not in operational, no discharge of effluent/wastewater was found in the vicinity.
4. It is submitted that no application for consent was received to this office from the unit till date. A direction letter dated 19-2-2026 was issued to 2nd, 4th and 5th respondents from this office on 19.02.2026. A true copy of the direction letter dated 19.02.2026 issued by this respondent to 2 nd, 4th and 5th respondents is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R6(a)."
6. From the above report, it is clear that the Pollution Control Board has already issued Annexure R6(a). In the light of the same, there can be a direction to the additional 6 th respondent to proceed with Annexure R6(a), and the 5th respondent can function the peeling shed only after complying with the directions in Annexure R6(a) in accordance with the law. Similarly, respondents 1 and 2 will also proceed with Ext.P3 after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 5th respondent.
7. Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent takes me through paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit filed by the 5 th respondent. The relevant portion of the above counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:
WP(C) NO.44055 OF 2025 7 2026:KER:16151 "6. It is submitted that neither Respondent No. 4 nor I have constructed any illegal structure on our property. We have been carrying on prawn peeling activities at the said place, which is owned by me, for several years. Recently, in order to protect ourselves from the severe sunlight, we erected a small temporary shelter covered with sheets and polythene. The said structure does not amount to the construction of a building. It is further submitted that the prawns peeled at the said place are not washed there; only the peeling process is carried out. The suppliers who provide the raw materials take back the peeled prawns immediately after processing, and the washing is done at their respective premises after collecting such materials from various locations. Therefore, only a very minimal quantity of water is generated in the course of the peeling process, that too mainly for washing the shed. The said wastewater does not accumulate in any part of the property. The wastewater is accumulated in a tank and is pumped directly to the sea, which is situated around 50 metres from the site; hence, no water is allowed to stagnate in the area. The prawn husks are removed immediately after peeling and transported to the designated place for drying and further processing. As such, no waste or unhygienic matter is left behind at the site. The photographs of the water tanks made in and outside the shed is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R5(a) and Exhibit R5(b)."
8. I am of the considered opinion that the 5th respondent has to comply with the directions in Ext.R6(a).
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:
1. The additional 6th respondent is directed to do the needful consequent to Annexure R6(a), after giving WP(C) NO.44055 OF 2025 8 2026:KER:16151 an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the 5th respondent, as expeditiously as possible. I make it clear that the 5th respondent can function the peeling shed only after getting sufficient permit from the additional 6th respondent in accordance with the law.
2. Respondents 1 and 2 will proceed with Ext.P3 after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the 5th respondent and do the needful in accordance with the law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
DM
Judgment reserved NA
Date of judgment 23.02.2026
Judgment dictated 23.02.2026
Draft Judgment Placed 24.02.2026
Final Judgment Uploaded 25.02.2026
WP(C) NO.44055 OF 2025
9
2026:KER:16151
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 44055 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 16.07.2025
ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 11.11.2025
ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.08.2025
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION LETTER NO.
PCB/ALP/TG-514/21 DATED 19-2-2026 ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER TO 2ND, 4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENTS.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R5(A) THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WATER TANKS MADE IN THE SHED EXHIBIT R5(B) THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WATER TANKS OUTSIDE THE SHED EXHIBIT R5(C) THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE HUT AND THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE