- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bhaskaran And Others... v. State Of Kerala, Rep...
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners reside in a Harijan colony comprising 25 families, located near the Arapara area where 30 other families live. The 7th respondent intends to establish a Metal Crusher Unit in Arapara, Ward No. 12 of Karakurussi Grama Panchayat. The proposed site is within 60 metres of residential houses and within 100 metres of the petitioners' colony. The petitioners contend that the establishment of the Metal Crusher Unit will disrupt their peaceful life, cause dust and sound pollution, lead to health problems, and potentially contaminate the water supply. The petitioners submitted representations (Exts. P1 to P3) to respondents 2, 4, and 5, but no action was taken. Consequently, the petitioners filed the writ petition seeking directions to the relevant authorities to consider their representations and pass appropriate orders before granting permission or consent to the 7th respondent for establishing the unit.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the 4th respondent is obligated to consider the petitioners' representation (Ext.P2) and pass orders after hearing the petitioners and the 7th respondent before issuing any permit or licence for the Metal Crusher Unit.
- Whether the 5th respondent is obligated to consider the petitioners' representation (Ext.P3) and pass orders after hearing the petitioners and the 7th respondent before granting any consent for establishing the Metal Crusher Unit.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court noted the proximity of the proposed Metal Crusher Unit to residential areas and the potential adverse effects on the petitioners’ health and environment. Recognizing the petitioners’ grievances and the lack of action on their representations, the court directed the 4th respondent (Geologist) to consider the petitioners’ representation (Ext.P2) and to pass a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioners and the 7th respondent, preferably within three weeks. Similarly, the 5th respondent (Environmental Engineer of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board) was directed to consider the representation (Ext.P3) and pass orders after hearing the concerned parties, preferably within five weeks. These directions ensure procedural fairness and compliance with legal requirements before any permit or consent is granted for the establishment of the unit.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition is finally disposed of with directions to the 4th and 5th respondents to consider the petitioners' representations and pass appropriate orders after hearing all parties within specified timeframes.
The decision mandates procedural diligence by the relevant authorities before granting permissions related to the Metal Crusher Unit, thereby addressing the petitioners' environmental and health concerns. No new precedent was established; the ruling primarily ensures administrative compliance with existing legal obligations.
Alexander Thomas, J.:— The case set up in the Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:
That the Petitioners are residing in a Harijan colony which consists of 25 families. There are 30 other families residing in Arapara area. The 7th Respondent is intended to establish a Metal Crusher Unit in Arapara in Ward No. 12 of Karakurussi Grama Panchayat. There are residential houses within 60 metres from the site and the Petitioners colony is within 100 metres from the site. Therefore the proposed site is an objectionable one and if the Metal Crusher Unit is established that will affect the peaceful life of the Petitioners and like persons as also dust and sound pollution in the area and also various health problems which includes scarcity of drinking water and also it may cause contamination of water in the area. Petitioners approached Respondents 2, 4 and 5 by filing representations evident from Exts. P1 to P3 highlighting their grievances, but the Respondents are not taken any steps to consider the same.
2. It is in the light of these averments and contentions that the petitioners have filed the instant W.P.(C.) with the following prayers :
(i) “To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction directing the 4th Respondent to consider Ext.P2 and pass orders after hearing any one of the Petitioners and the 7th Respondent before issuing any permit/licence to the 7th Respondent for establishing a Metal Crusher Unit.
(ii) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction directing the 5th Respondent to consider Ext.P3 and pass orders after hearing the Petitioners and the 7th Respondent before issuing any consent to the 7th Respondent for establishing a Metal Crusher Unit;
(iii) To grant such other and further reliefs as are just, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. Heard Sri. Mohanakannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri. T. Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for Kerala State Pollution Control Board appearing for R5. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this petition, notices to R6 and R7 will stand dispensed with.
4. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of this case, the following directions and orders are passed:
1) The 4 respondent-Geologist will take up for consideration the matters raised by the petitioners in Ext.P2 representation dated 14.1.2019 and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and the respondent No. 7, and will take a considered decision so as to pass orders on the said representation without much delay, preferably within a period of 3 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.
2) Further, it is ordered that the 5 respondent-Environmental Engineer of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board will take up the matters raised in Ext.P3 representation dated 14.1.2019 and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and the 7 respondent and to pass orders on the said representation, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 5 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.
5. The petitioners will produce certified copies of this judgment along with the copies of the memorandum of this W.P.(C.) along with all the exhibits before 4 and 5 respondents for necessary information and further action. Registry will forward a certified copy of this judgment to R7, at the cost of the petitioners.
6. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.
Alert