The judgment emphasizes the importance of protecting citizens from environmental pollution caused by industrial activities and upholds the right of individuals to seek legal remedies against such pollution.

Headnote:
Environmental Pollution - Factory Establishment - Kerala Panchayat (Licensing of Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules - Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the construction and working of a factory near their residence was illegal and requested a permanent injunction. The trial court granted an injunction against the factory owner, which was upheld on appeal.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the factory was situated close to the plaintiffs' residence, causing the possibility of nuisance, sound, and air pollution. It held that there was a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs and that the balance of convenience favored the health aspects of the citizens. The appellate court upheld the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit was maintainable and whether the factory caused pollution and health hazards to the neighboring residents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was maintainable and that the factory caused a prima facie case of nuisance, sound, and air pollution, affecting the health of the plaintiffs. It also emphasized the importance of balancing health aspects over economic interests.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was disposed of, and the trial court was directed to allow an application for inspection of the factory by the Pollution Control Board to measure pollution and recommend remedial measures.

Judgment :-

Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S. No. 299/2003 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Perambavoor. Plaintiffs are residing very near to the factory set up by the petitioner/first defendant. The suit is instituted for a declaration that the construction and working of the factory in the plaint schedule property is illegal and for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from running the factory. There is also a prayer against the authorities not to grant any licence to run the factory in the present condition.

2. It is averred in the plaint in Para 4 that if the factory is allowed to be run it will cause the plaintiffs and their family members various ailments, breathing trouble, head ache etc. It is also alleged that the establishment of the factory is contrary to the distance rule and without obtaining proper sanction from the authorities and without taking necessary precautionary, measures to prevent pollution. Apart from the petitioner, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, the District Medical Officer and the Chief Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board are also made parties as defendants 2 to 5. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed before the trial court to restrain the working of the factory and the authorities from granting any licence to run the factory in the present condition.

3. The trial court on point No.2 found that the plaintiffs/petitioners are not entitled to get a temporary injunction restraining respondents 2 to 4 (defendants 2 to 4) from issuing necessary license or permission to the unit of the first defendant – petitioner herein. But in view of the finding on Issue No.1 the plaintiffs/ petitioners were found entitled to get a temporary injunction restraining the defendant/petitioner from running the plywood unit in the plaint schedule property very near to their residence and from causing nuisance in the same. It was found on point No.1 that the plaintiffs/petitioners in the interlocutory application have established a strong prima facie case in the injunction application and considering the close lie of the present unit, it was found just and proper to pass an ad interim order restringing the first defendant/petitioner running the unit till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner herein who is the first respondent in the I.A. and first defendant in the suit, preferred an appeal as C.M.A. 42/2003 before the Principal Sub Judge, North Paravur, who after elaborate consideration of the matter, confirmed the order passed by the trial court, against which the present civil revision petition is preferred.

4. The first question that arises for consideration is as to whether a civil revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure is maintainable against an interim injunction granted by the trial court, which is confirmed in appeal?

5. As per the proviso added to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, revision will lie only in cases where the order, if had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding. In Shiv Shakti Co. op Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers (2003 (6) SCC 659) it was held that “ the bar under the proviso to Section 115 will operate if the order in favour of the party applying for revision even if allowed will not finally dispose of the suit or other proceedings and that interim order is not revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Ramakumar raised a contention that ‘other proceedings’ referred to in Section 115 will take in a temporary injunction order as confirmed by the appellate court and therefore, revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I am unable to agree with this contention. The legislature has inserted the proviso with intention to accelerate the trial of the suit without being stalled at inte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis