Sree Muruga Bricks v. M.V. Cherian

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/6TH PHALGUNA, 1936 RP.No. 409 of 2014 () IN WP(C).1574/2014 ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 1574/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/9TH RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- SREE MURUGA BRICKS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. A.T.RAMASWAMY S/O. NARAYANAN THANKAPPAN, AGED 52 YRS ATHIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MEEMBARA P.O., ERNAKULAM-682308. BY ADVS.SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------

1. M.V. CHERIAN MARIKKARA PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, MEEMPARA P.O.

ERNAKULAM.

2. THE MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE S.I.D.C.O. BUILDING KADAVANTHRA GANDHINAGAR ERNAKULAM-20.

3. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DISTRICT OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN-20.

5. SENIOR TOWN PLANNER REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-682620.

6. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH) PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682011.

7. DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM-682021.

8. POOTHRIKKA GRAMA PANCHAYATH POOTHRIKKA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682308 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

9. SECRETARY POOTHRIKKA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POOTHRIKKA P.O.

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682308.

10. NARAYANAN THANKAPPAN ATHIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MEEMBARA P.O., ERNAKULAM-682308.

R3,R4 BY SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD R8-R9 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ABDUL RAHMAN FOR R2 & R6 BY SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

............................................................ in W.P. (C ) No. 1574 of 2014 .............................................................. Dated : 25 - 02 - 2015

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents. 2.

This Review Petition has been filed on account of th respondent in the matter certain difficulties faced by the 9 relating to operating a Unit which had already been established. In the operative portion of the judgment, this Court observed that th respondent shall make necessary adjustments in his the 9 building to maintain the distance which is prescribed by the Pollution Control Board at Ext. P4. It is pointed out that Ext. P4 is dated 20-7-2011. Even prior to the said date, by Ext. R9(h)

in W.P. (C ) No. 1574 of 2014 dated 28-12-2009, the review petitioner was given the consent to establish the Unit.

3. According to the review petitioner, the building was established immediately after the consent to establish the Unit has been granted. As per the rules then prevailing, the set back to be provided is only 3 metres, whereas, as per Ext. P4, it is 10 metres. Annexure - B is the Circular dated 9-8-2004 issued by the Pollution Control Board with regard to the distance to be maintained. This fact is supported by the learned counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board.

4. Materials on record indicates that the review petitioner started construction of the building on the basis of the consent to establish the Unit issued as early as on 28-12-2009, and therefore, the set back to be provided can only be as on the date of Annexure -B.

5. Though the learned counsel for the respondent/Writ

in W.P. (C ) No. 1574 of 2014 Petitioner submits that the construction activities were started subsequent to Ext. P4 coming into force, on the basis of the facts available on record, I do not think that such a contention is tenable. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that appropriate clarification is to be made to the judgment dated 21-3-2014. It is, therefore, made clear that it shall be open for the Pollution Control Board to rely upon Annexure B and provide appropriate consent to operate the Unit to the petitioner, if he complies with the other requirements.

With the above clarification, this Review Petition is closed. Sd/-A.M. SHAFFIQUE (Judge) ani/ /true copy/ P.S. to Judge