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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13315

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SASEENDRAN, SAJIMOL, VISWAN – Appellant
Versus
PURAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 44055 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.R.REJI, SHRI.M.V.THAMBAN, SMT.THARA THAMBAN, SRI.B.BIPIN, SRI.ARUN BOSE, SMT.JEENA A.V., SHRI.ARJUN R.
For the Respondents: SHRI.ABDUL KHADER KUNJU S., SHRI.A AL FAYAD GP, SMT PREETHA K K, SRI T NAVEEN, SC

Compliance with local environmental regulations is essential for the operation of industrial units to protect public health.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: Relevant sections of local governance and environmental protection laws are invoked. Facts of the Case: Petitioners seek action against illegal construction by private respondents impacting local hygiene conditions.

Findings of Court:
The Court mandates adherence to legal requirements before the continued operation of the peeling shed.

Issues: The core question relates to the legality of the peeling shed concerning local regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court highlights the necessity for compliance with environmental regulations before operation, emphasizing public health concerns.

Result: The Court directs appropriate authorities to act in accordance with the relevant laws and to hear all parties involved.

Table of Content
1. petitioners' grievances regarding local construction and hygiene (Para 1 , 2)
2. representation by various parties in court (Para 3)
3. court's imperative regarding environmental inspection (Para 4 , 5)
4. pollution control measures and compliance (Para 6)
5. requirements for operational permissions post-compliance (Para 7)
6. conclusion dictating further steps required for legal compliance (Para 8)

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i) to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order directing respondents 1 to 3, to take appropriate action against the illegal construction and functioning of the peeling shed therein.

ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order directing respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the illegal construction and functioning of the peeling shed therein, accumulation of waste and causing foul of its bad smell in the locality.

iii) to issue such other further reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.

iv) To dispense with the English translation of vernacular documents.

v) Allow the writ petition with cost."

[SIC]

2. The petitioners are aggrieved because respondents 1 to 3 are not taking further action based on the stop memo issued against respondents 4 and 5 for the alleged illegal construction and the illegal conduct of peeling shed by them without obtaining any permit/license. It is submitted that respondents 4 and 5 are the neighbouring property owner of the petitioners. Respondents 4 and 5 constructed a building in their property and the said building is now being used by them as prawns peeling shed. It is submitted that the illegal functioning of the peeling shed therein and the accumulation of waste therein is causing foul smell as well as filth in the locality. The petitioners filed complaint before the 1st and 2nd respondents against the illegal construction and functioning of the peeling shed therein, accumulation of waste and foul smell in the locality, is the submission. It is further submitted that the Panchayat is not taking any action. The petitioners are also aggrieved because no further steps are taken after Ext.P3.

Hence, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent and the learned Government Pleader. Even though notice was issued to the 4th respondent, there is no appearance for the 4th respondent.

4. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration before this Court on 30.01.2026, this Court passed the following order:

“The additional 6th respondent will inspect the premises mentioned in the Writ Petition and submit a report before this court, whether there is any pollution, because of the peeling shed in the area.

The report shall be placed on record within a period of three weeks.

Post on 23.02.2026. ”

5. Now, a report is submitted by the Environmental Engineer, Pollution Control Board. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above report:

“2. In compliance with the interim order of this Hon’ble Court dated 30.01.2026, an Inspection was conducted on 13.02.2026 at the premises of the unit operated by the 4th and 5th respondents, located at Purakkad Grama Panchayath, Ambalappuzha Taluk, Alappuzha. At the time of inspection, 5th Respondent along with the unit representatives were present. The unit was not operational, and the representatives informed that the activity carried out in the unit is peeling of prawns, which has not been functioning for the past few weeks. The findings of the inspection are submitted below:

a. The walls of the unit were only temporarily enclosed. No permanent walls were provided.

b. Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) was not provided for treatment and disposal of the trade effluent from peeling. The E

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