Charles. T. David vs The State Of Kerala & Ors.

Soumen Sen, C.J.

The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 20^th November, 2025 whereby the learned Single Judge, while deciding a batch of writ petitions, disposed of the writ petitions by directing the Pollution Control Board to consider the applications for renewal / consent to operate their existing units strictly following the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and the circular issued by the Pollution Control Board dated 31^st July, 2024.

The application for renewal of the independent consent to operate is pending with the Pollution Control Board and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Pollution Control Board, on instructions, has submitted that the personal hearing in that regard has been concluded and the matter is awaiting final orders.

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the direction of the learned Single Judge of the requirement to change the unit from drum-type to batch-type while considering any fresh application for renewal for future periods was unnecessary, since the drum-type unit was in operation causing pollution. However, we are of the view that the observation of the learned Single Judge cannot be read out of context, as it clearly says that while considering the application for renewal of independent consent to operate, the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change and the circular issued by the Pollution Control Board on 31^st July, 2024 are to be taken into consideration.

The said observation only seeks to clarify that, if the drum-type unit does not result in pollution, the same may be taken into consideration as one of the factors while considering the application for consent to operate. However, it has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that it has already been decided that the drum-type operations in respect of similar units have resulted in pollution and in this regard, he has referred to documents to show that in respect of self same unit, there has been an earlier decision of the Pollution Control Board that the drum-type operation caused pollution. Since the Pollution Control Board is in seisin of the matter, we are confident that the Pollution Control Board will take into consideration all relevant factors while deciding the application for renewal of the independent consent to operate.

We make it clear that we are not inclined to make any observations on merits and it shall be for the Pollution Control Board to take a conscious decision after taking into consideration all the relevant factors. The disposal of the appeal shall also not prevent the appellant from challenging the final order of the Pollution Control Board, if it is prejudicial to the appellant. Since no active opposition is called for, all allegations are deemed to have been denied.