IMPORTANT POINT
Licenses issued by authorities for operating a metal crusher unit are valid when necessary clearances are obtained, and claims of natural justice violations are unfounded if the petitioner was heard.

JUDGMENT :

1. These writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner complaining about the functioning of a metal crusher unit by the 2^nd respondent herein. For ease of reference, the parties are referred to with reference to W.P.(C) No.8082 of 2019.

2. The afore writ petition is filed by the deceased petitioner, who is none other than the brother of the 2^nd respondent herein. Upon the death of the petitioner, his legal heirs have been impleaded as additional petitioners 2 to 4. The petitioner contends that his deceased father was running a crusher unit on the basis of a No Objection Certificate issued to him. He states that his father died way back in 1993 and upon the death of his father, the crusher unit has devolved on the 2^nd respondent herein pursuant to the partition between the legal heirs. The petitioner states that the 2^nd respondent was, thereafter, running the unit by employing manual labour.

However, he complains that from 2010 onwards, the 2^nd respondent started to employ the machinery causing alleged pollution within the locality. The petitioner, further contends that he had filed a civil suit before the Munsiff’s Court, Changanassery, and obtained Ext.P1(a) judgment and decree, as per which the 2^nd respondent herein was injuncted from running the unit without obtaining a valid licence and permit, or in violation of the Rules, or in detriment to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the Civil suit. The petitioner, thereafter, contends that the Civil court issued Ext.P1 decree on the basis of the report of the Advocate Commissioner, as per which the distance between the crusher unit and the residential house of the petitioner was around 58 meters. He, thereafter, points out that the 2^nd respondent applied to get permission for establishing a secondary machinery in the unit and on the basis of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P5, filed by the 2^nd respondent, the Panchayat was directed to consider the request for issuance of licence to the 2^nd respondent. He, thereafter, contends that though Ext.P6 was filed before the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and Ext.P7 before the Panchayat, by Exts.P8 and P9, the Panchayat committee decided to grant the required licences to the petitioner. It is in such circumstances, that W.P.(C) No.8082 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner challenging Exts.P8 and P9 issued by the Panchayat, as above.

3. As regards W.P.(C) No.27664 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the Consent to Operate as well as the licence issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and the Local authority, respectively.

4. I have heard Sri.P.Kuruvilla Jacob, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.T.Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Sri.K.R.Sunil on behalf of the 2^nd respondent and Sri.Nandagopal S.Kurup, learned Standing Counsel for the Kangazha Grama Panchayat - respondents 4 and 5 herein.

5. The essential challenge in these writ petitions appears to be with reference to the running of a crusher unit by the 2^nd respondent herein. Sri.P.Kuruvilla Jacob, learned counsel for the petitioner would harp upon Ext.P1(a) judgment and decree of the Civil Court to contend that on the basis of the findings contained thereon, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, or for that matter, the Panchayat ought not have issued the licence/consent to operate. At the first blush, the afore contention appears to be attractive. At the same time, this Court notices that the judgment and decree of the Civil Court has to be read in its entirety. The judgment and decree at Ext.P1(a) specifically notices that the 2^nd respondent herein was injuncted from running the crusher unit without obtaining the required clearances from the authority concerned and it is with reference to that, the entitlement of the petitioner for having the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in his possession is to be considered. If