The Panchayat has the authority to monitor and take action based on reports from competent authorities regarding pollution caused by industrial units.

A.M. Shaffique, J.

The petitioners in the writ petition are the appellants in the writ appeal. The subject matter involved in both the cases are with reference to the functioning of a rice mill by a concern by name Aishwarya Modern Rice Mill. Hence the writ petition and writ appeal are heard and decided together.

2. W.P.C. No.14575 of 2014 is filed by the petitioners seeking for a direction to the Grama Panchayat not to issue or renew the licence in favour of the 6th respondent to run the rice mill and to issue stop memo against them. 6th respondent is the Managing Partner of the Aishwarya rice mill.

3. W.A. No.1692 of 2015 arises from the judgment in W.P.C.No.15583 of 2015. The said writ petition was filed by Aishwarya Rice Mill seeking to challenge Ext.P10 by which they were asked to operate the rice mill only between 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

4. First, we shall deal with the averments in W.P.C.No.14575/2014. The petitioners in the said case alleges that the unit originally started as a small unit which was later developed into a large scale industrial unit by installing additional machineries. It is alleged that the unit is highly polluted and on account of the effluents being discharged from the unit, the adjacent wells, bore wells and ponds are being contaminated. It is alleged that the licence granted by the Panchayat has expired on 31/03/2014 and hence the petitioners sought for the reliefs aforesaid.

5. Counter affidavit was filed by the 6th respondent inter alia stating that they are in possession of necessary licence/permission from the competent authorities. When allegations are raised regarding pollution, they have engaged M/s. Poluchem Laboratories (P) Ltd which was approved by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to monitor the quality of effluent. The report indicated that there is no pollution and the parameters of effluent are within the permissible limits. Respondents have denied the allegation of any pollution being caused to the nearby locality. With reference to the licence, it is stated that the petitioners were operating the unit with valid licence since 1996 and an application was submitted on 03/02/2014 for renewal of licence for the period 2014-15. No reply had been received and therefore the petitioners are entitled for a deemed licence. The petitioners had filed a reply affidavit controverting the above stand of the 6th respondent and reiterating their stand. They also denied the fact that the 6th respondent is entitled to operate the unit with deemed licence.

6. W.A. No.1692/2015 is filed by the petitioners in W.P.C. No.15583/2015, after seeking leave of court, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge had set aside Ext.P10 and permitted the petitioners to operate the rice mill on the basis of the valid consent obtained by the petitioner from the Pollution Control Board. The learned Single Judge found that no counter affidavit has been filed in the case and the materials available on record clearly indicated that the petitioner was to have a continuous process of operating 24 hours in three shifts which is permitted by the Inspector of Factories and Boilers and therefore the restriction imposed by the Panchayat is not valid. The appellants submit that in so far as the permission had been granted by the Panchayat only for operating the unit from 5.30 a.m. and 9.30 p.m., the petitioner shall not be permitted to operate the unit beyond the said time. Learned counsel also relied upon Annexure A1, an order dated 07/12/2009 by which permission has been granted to the unit to install machinery having capacity of 300 HP. It is argued that condition No.9 clearly indicates that the unit should not be operated within 9.30 p.m and 5.30 a.m. It is also argued that since the unit is causing large scale pollution by discharging the effluents without any treatment, it causes pollution in the neighbouring locality.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned