SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 42

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Lazer - Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Nagercoil & Others - Respondent
W.P.(MD) No. 19510 of 2021 & W.M.P.(MD) Nos. 16207 & 16208 of 2021
Decided On : 11-01-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :C. Kishore, Advocate.
For the Respondent:D. Ghandiraj, Special Government Pleader, Vijayakumari Natarajan, L. Jeenfelix, Advocate.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981 - Section 21 - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 25 - Restrictions on use of certain industrial plants - Petitioner, claims that he is a proprietor of “L.V.S.Cement Works” - He stated that he has been running said small scale industry from 2014. Just opposite to his industry, respondent, C. Alexander Joseph, is running a similar business called “J.J.Cement Works” - It had been stated that petitioner had registered his industry with Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Tamil Nadu - He had also enrolled with Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, Government of India - He had also obtained approved trade licence – Held, Contravention of aforesaid provisions invites penal action - Show cause notices were issued to petitioner - Opportunity was granted to petitioner to stop polluting air and water - Further during spot inspection, it was found that petitioner had stored raw materials, like jellies and M-Sand in haphazard manner causing air pollution - Further, he had not also provided closed shed to carry out their works - They have to obtain consent from Pollution Control Board either for establishing the unit or for operating unit - Unit is a cement work unit - It is common knowledge that a cement work unit causes air pollution and also pollutes ground level water - respondents were also bound by order of Division Bench of this Court - They conducted an inspection of petitioner's premises - No objections were raised by petitioner with respect to nature of inspection conducted - It is therefore clear that petitioner has filed Writ Petition more clutching at straws than out of any real intent to get relief from Court - Entire Writ Petition is misconceived - It is speculative - Petitioner must put his unit in order - He must not cause pollution to air or water surrounding areas - Writ Petition is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the third respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.393/2018/A1, dated 18.10.2021 and quash the same as illegal.

1. This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.393/2018/A1, dated 18.10.2021 and to quash the same.

2. The petitioner, Lazer, claims that he is a proprietor of “L.V.S.Cement Works” at Palugal Village, Kanyakumari District. He stated that he has been running the said small scale industry from 2014. Just opposite to his industry, the fourth respondent, C.Alexander Joseph, is running a similar business called “J.J.Cement Works”. It had been stated that the petitioner had registered his industry with the Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Tamil Nadu on 25.08.2015. He had also enrolled with the Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, Government of India. He had also obtained approved trade licence.

3. The petitioner further stated that the fourth respondent had filed a public interest litigation in W.P.(MD)No.24446 of 2018 claiming that the industry of the petitioner herein is causing pollution. The Division Bench of this Court had disposed of the said Writ Petition by order, dated 12.07.2021 with a direction to the third respondent/the Executive Officer, Palugal Town Panchayat, Palugal Post, Kanyakumari District, to conduct a spot inspection of the premises of the petitioner and thereafter, to proceed further in manner known to law, if it is found that there is pollution.

4. The petitioner claims that the inspection was conducted on 17.08.2021. The second respondent had thereafter issued a show cause notice on 24.08.2021. The petitioner had replied to the same on 06.09.2021. However, the impugned notice was issued on 18.10.2021 directing the petitioner to stop the functioning of “L.V.S.Cement Works” unit within 48 hours. The Writ Petition has been filed questioning the said impugned notice.

5. A counter had been filed on behalf of the second respondent/District Environment Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Nagercoil, Kanyakumar District, wherein, it is stated that pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.24446 of 2018, an inspection was conducted on 17.08.2021 in the industry of the petitioner. This inspection was conducted along with Executive Officer, Palugal Town Panchayat. It was found that the petitioner unit was in operation without obtaining consent of the Pollution Control Board. They had not provided closed shed to carry out their works and also stored the raw materials such as M.Sand, jellies in haphazard manner causing fugitive emission. It was stated that therefore show cause notices were issued under Water and Air Acts.

6. It was further stated that a similar show cause notice was issued to the unit run by the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent had replied that they had stopped their operation and that they would vacate the finished products from the site within a period of 30 days. However, the petitioner continued to function and therefore, notices had been issued to discontinue the electricity connection and to seal the unit. It was also stated that instructions were given to the Tasildar, Vilavancode Taluk to seal the unit of the petitioner. It had been stated that the Writ Petition should be dismissed.

7. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.C.Kishore, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.D.Ghandiraj, learned Special Government Pleader for first and third respondents, Mrs.Vijayakumari Natarajan, learned Counsel for the second respondent Mr.L.Jeenfelix, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent.

8. The main contention of the petitioner is that he had necessary permission and registered “L.V.S.Cement Works”, which is running at Pugalur Village, Kanyaku

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top