Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

A.Ebanezer vs The District Collector on 7 March, 2018

Author: P.Rajamanickam

Bench: P.Rajamanickam

        

 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED: 07.03.2018  

CORAM   

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM          
                                                                        
W.P.(MD) No.21246 of  2017  
and 
W.M.P.(MD) No.17522 of 2017   

A.Ebanezer                                              ... Petitioner
        
-Vs-

1.The District Collector,
   Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

2.The District Collector,
   Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Superintendent of Police,
   Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

4.The Superintendent of Police,
    Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

5.The Inspector of Police,
   Kaliyakavilai Police Station,
   Kanyakumari District.                                ... Respondents 

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents not in anyway preventing
the petitioner from carrying out the business of transport the fish from
cochin fishing harbor to the merchants at Kovilpatti by vehicle bearing
Registration Nos.TN 75 9990, TN 74 R 8798 and KL 01AG 2223 by considering the   
representation of the petitioner dated 30.10.2017.


!For Petitioner         : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
        
For Respondents : Mr.V.Anand,         
                                          Government Advocate. 
                                        
:ORDER  

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents not in anyway preventing the petitioner from carrying out the business of transport the fish from Cochin Fishing Harbor to the merchants at Kovilpatti by vehicles bearing Registration Nos.TN 75 9990, TN 74 8796 and KL 01 AG 2223 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 30.10.2017.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is doing transport business in the name and style of Flora and he used to transport fish from Cochin to Kovilpatti. He further submitted that the petitioner has obtained licence from the Administration of Cochin Fishing Harbor and the fishes were transported through the vehicles and they will be dried by the merchants and used as feed to the poultry. He further submitted that the respondents are preventing the petitioner from doing his lawful business and hence, they may be restrained not to interfere with the petitioner's business of transporting the fishes from Cochin Fishing Harbor to the merchants at Kovilpatti.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) has submitted that the petitioner is trying to transport only waste materials of the fish and hence, he has to obtain necessary authorization from the State Pollution Control Board as per Rule 5 of the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2015, but he has not obtained any such authorization and therefore, he is not entitled to transport the fish waste.

4.Sub-Rule (1) Rule 5 of Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2015, reads as follows:- "5.Grant of authorisation for Managing hazardous and other wastes:-

(1)Every person who is engaged in generation , treatment, processing, Package, storage, transportation, use, collection, destruction, conversion, recycling, offering for sale, import, export, transfer or the like of the hazardous and other wastes shall be required to obtain an authorisation from the State Pollution Control Board."

5.From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that every person who is engaged in generation, treatment, processing, Package, storage, transportation etc., has to obtain an authorisation from the State Pollution Control Board. This petitioner has not stated that he has obtained any authorisation from the State Pollution Control Board. Therefore, if the petitioner obtains necessary authorisation from the State Pollution Control Board then he can transport fish waste. Therefore, this petition is not maintainable.

6.With the aforesaid observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

To

1.The District Collector, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

2.The District Collector, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

4.The Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

5.The Inspector of Police, Kaliyakavilai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

.