Ibrahim P. vs Basheer M.A. and Others

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The 6th respondent in W.P.(C) No. 28923 of 2009 is the appellant herein. The writ petitioners approached this Court with the following prayers:

i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to see to it that the unit run by the 6th respondent is closed forthwith if the same continues functioning without obtaining permission from Central Empowered Committee.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to conduct an inspection of ''Shine Industries'' run by the 6th respondent without any delay.

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 5th respondent to take all measures for preventing the nuisance caused by the industrial unit of the 6th respondent and

iv) Pass such other orders as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The main grievance of the writ petitioners was that the unit was being operated by the 6th respondent which is a plywood industry without the necessary permit from the Central Empowered Committee. An interim order was passed on 22.7.2010 directing that the unit should be run only between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. until further orders. The 6th respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit pointing out the facts and figures and also stating that the permit had already been obtained from the Central Empowered Committee as borne by Ext.R6(a). The position as above was taken note of and the matter was disposed of by the learned Single Judge making the interim order absolute and directing respondents 2 and 5 to ensure that functioning of the unit was in tune with the stipulations in the interim order and also in conformity with the conditions of the consent and licence issued by the Pollution Control Board and the Panchayat.

The appellant is now before this Court stating that, pursuant to the inspection conducted by the Pollution Control Board, the consent has now been varied as borne by Ext.R2(b) dated 19.8.2010 and that the appellant is very much entitled to operate the unit in tune with the terms and conditions of the consent and licence, in conformity with the relevant provisions of law. The grievance projected in the writ appeal is that the stipulation contained in the interim order dated 22.7.2010 that the operation of the unit shall be between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. (which has been made absolute while passing the final verdict in the wit petition) adversely affects the rights and interests of the appellant which in turn is sought to be intercepted.

The learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 herein submits that the grievance of the petitioners is more with regard to the nuisance that is being caused because of the operation of the unit. Leaned counsel also submits that the writ petitioners have no objection in operating the unit in accordance with the terms and conditions of the above consent and licence issued by the concerned authorities and in tune with the relevant provisions of law.

In the above facts and circumstances, we make it clear that the observation made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned verdict that the operation of the unit shall also be in tune with the interim order dated 22.7.2010 regarding ''fixation of timings'' as between ''8 a.m. and 7 p.m.'' will stand deleted and the rest of the verdict is sustained.

The writ appeal is disposed of modifying the impugned judgment accordingly.