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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Nitin Jamdar, CJ, Syam Kumar V.M., J
A.S. Granites Stock Yard Kaniyamthodu, Mukhathala P.O, Kollam District – Appellant
Versus
Sudhakaran – Respondent
WA NO. 2010 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO.20064 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Georgekutty Mathew
For the Respondents: T. Naveen, V. Renjith Kumar

Pollution control measures compliance and legal procedures after cessation of operations as directed by the Pollution Control Board.

Headnote:The case pertains to a writ appeal regarding pollution control measures associated with the appellant's operation. The court observed that the unit complied with relevant distance norms and had undergone inspections confirming its pollution control measures. However, a show cause notice was issued due to the unit ceasing operations and non-compliant actions regarding pollution control measures. The final order disposed of the appeal directing proceedings to follow due process as warranted by law.

Table of Content
1. court observations and final directive regarding the show cause notice. (Para 1 , 4)
2. compliance with pollution control norms and the impact of cessation of operations. (Para 2 , 3)

J U D G M E N T Dated this the 26th day of November, 2025 Nitin Jamdar, C. J.

Heard Mr. Georgekutty Mathew, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. T. Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 4 and Mr. V. Renjith Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 5.

2. The Appellant is Respondent No. 5 in the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1 herein. The Appellant wanted to withdraw the appeal. Since the Original Petitioner had filed the writ petition raising the issue of pollution on behalf of the residents of the area, by order dated 16 October 2025, we directed Respondent No. 4-Kerala State Pollution Control Board to file an affidavit as to whether the contention of the Original Petitioner regarding pollution alleged to have been caused by the Appellant and its impact on the residents of the area, is substantiated.

3. Pursuant to the above direction, the Pollution Control Board has filed an affidavit wherein it is stated in paragraph Nos. 4 to 6 as under:-

“4. The unit comes under green category as per the categorization of the Board. For a green category unit, 3- meter distance to the nearby residence and 5 meter distance to the public buildings have to be satisfied. As per the site plan and affidavit, the nearest residence was at 90m from the unit. Since the location was satisfying the distance norms of the Board, Ext.P1 Consent to Operate dated 4-12-2021 was issued to the Unit with validity upto 31.10.2026.

5. It is respectfully submitted that based on the Writ Petition, earlier an inspection was conducted on 30.11.2023. The boundary of the unit was seen provided with compound wall and above it covered with metal sheet at a height of about 6 meter. Sprinkler of adequate numbers were seen provided and found working during the inspection. Log book for recording daily quantity of materials in stock was seen maintained. Based on the inspection, direction was issued to the unit on 08.12.2023 to tar the internal roads and provide a tyre washing facility. Based on the compliance report submitted by the appellant, the unit was inspected on 07.09.2024. The internal roads were seen tarred and a concreted ditch was seen provided for the tyre washing facility. The pollution control measures were found adequate, and no further action was taken against the unit. It is submitted that the Writ Petition was disposed vide Judgment dated 21.10.2024 directing the appellant to function the unit only after a Trade Licence is granted by the Panchayat.

6. It is respectfully submitted that as directed by the Hon'ble High Court in the present writ appeal, the unit was inspected on 30.10.2025. The unit was not functioning. No stocking activities were seen carried out. The unit representative informed that the unit plot is proposed to be utilized for other activities, and the unit has stopped functioning. Since the unit is not functioning, the Board Officials have not observed any pollution threat from the unit, during the inspection. It was noticed that the unit has removed the pollution control measures from the unit without intimating the Board. Hence a Show cause Notice was issued to the unit on 04.11.2025.”

4. In view of the above position placed on record and taking note of the fact that the Pollution Control Board has already issued a show cause notice, we dispose of the appeal by observing that the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice shall be taken to a logical conclusion in accordance with law and after following due procedure.

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