Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11942
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
ROSILY M.K – Appellant
Versus
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR – Respondent
WP(C)/24279/2016
SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER, SRI.VINEETH KOMALACHANDRAN, SPECIAL G.P. SRI.SANDESH RAJA (FORESTS), SRI.T.NAVEEN, SRI.K.M.VARGHESE, SRI.ALAN PAPALI, SRI.ANTONY ROBERT DIAS, SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA, SRI.NISHIL.P.S., SRI.A.VELAPPAN NAIR
A preliminary order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. allows for objections, and environmental compliance must be reconsidered by regulatory authorities before further actions.
Headnote:
Regulation - Pollution Control - Criminal Procedure Code 133 - Kerala Forest Regulations - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged orders to cease operations of his saw mill based on pollution complaints and lacked necessary licenses, while arguing compliance with environmental regulations and disputing the classification of the mill under forest regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitions were premature as the petitioner had the right to object to the preliminary order issued under criminal procedure and recommended utilizing statutory remedies under the Kerala Forest Regulations.
Issues: Whether the orders issued for ceasing the saw mill operations were justified or if the petitioner had complied with necessary regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that administrative and regulatory bodies must reconsider actions taken against the petitioner in light of his compliance with pollution control directives, without preemptively halting operations.
Final Decision: The writ petitions are disposed of with directions to avail statutory remedies.
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dated this the 1st day of September, 2021 [WP(C) Nos.21792/2015 & 24279/2016]
These writ petitions concern the same issue and hence are heard together and being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. In WP(C) No.21792/2015, the petitioner is seeking to quash Ext.P3 order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate by which the petitioner is directed to stop the functioning of “St. Antony’s Saw Mill” and to adopt scientific methods to reduce the sound and air pollution. In WP(C) No.24279/2016, the petitioner prays to direct respondents 1 to 7 to ensure that the unlicensed saw mill of the 8th respondent (petitioner in WP(C) No.21792/2015) is closed down forthwith for want of requisite licence from the 1st respondent. The parties and documents are referred to in this judgment as they are arrayed/marked in WP(C) No.21792/2015.
3. In WP(C) No.21792/2015, the petitioner stated that he is the proprietor of St. Antony’s Saw Mill and Furniture Mart, an SSI Unit registered with District Industries Centre, Ernakulam. The 5th respondent (the petitioner in WP(C) No.24279/2016) is the wife of petitioner’s brother. The Industrial Unit was issued Ext.P1 Consent to Operate, by the Pollution Control Board. The petitioner’ s brother and his wife, the 5th respondent, are inimical to the petitioner and have been filing complaints before various authorities against functioning of petitioner’s industrial unit.
4. On such a complaint made to the District Collector, the 2nd respondent-Sub Divisional Magistrate issued Ext.P3 Preliminary Order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. Ext.P3 order required the petitioner to stop the functioning of “St. Antony’s Saw Mill” and to adopt scientific methods to reduce the sound and air pollution within 7 days. The petitioner sought time to file objection. While so, the 4th respondent-Grama Panchayat issued Ext.P4 Stop Memo, based on another complaint of the
5th respondent.
5. The petitioner states that he has Consent to Operate issued by the Pollution Control Board. However, the Panchayat is not renewing their licence on the ground that NOC from the Chief Conservator of Forests is not received. The process of issuing NOC by the Chief Conservator of Forests is going on, as evidenced by Ext.P8. However, the Panchayat is insisting on production of NOC from the Forest Department. The petitioner would submit that for renewing an existing licence, the Panchayat need not insist on production of Forest Department’s NOC.
6. Pending the writ petition, the 6th respondent-Chief Conservator of Forests issued Ext.P11 order holding that as per the Kerala Forest (Regulation of Saw Mills and Other Wood Based Industrial Units) Rules, 2012, the petitioner is not eligible to run the saw mill as the saw mill was started after 30.10.2002. Based on Ext.P11, the Divisional Forest Officer issued Ext.P12 notice directing the petitioner to close down the Unit.
7. The petitioner states that Pollution Control Board Authorities held a hearing on the basis of complaints made against the Unit and drew Ext.P14 minutes in which the petitioner was directed to relocate the existing gate of the industrial unit and to heighten the existing compound wall using bricks and sheets. The petitioner has complied with those directions and reported compliance as per Ext.P15. Nevertheless, the Panchayat issued Ext.P16 requiring the petitioner to stop the functioning of the Saw Mill. Hence, the petitioner challenges Exts.P3, P4, P11, P12 and P16.
8. The 5th respondent has filed WP(C) No.24279/2016 alleging that the Saw Mill of the petitioner is causing severe nuisance and pollution adversely affecting the residents in the neighbourhood. The Saw Mill is functioning just 7 metres away from the house of the 5th respondent. The District Medical Officer has given Ext.P1 (in WP(C) No.24279/2016) report to this effect. The Panchayat has not renewed their licence. The Divisional Forest Officer has ordered to stop the functioning of the Mill invoking the Kerala Forest
