The petitioner, who is conducting a hotel, cinema theatres and a bakery in a cluster building situated in a plot of land owned by him at Kanjani in Thrissur has approached this Court in this Writ Petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit P13 order issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur, the 3rd respondent, by which he has been directed to close down all the establishments on the ground that he has not obeyed the orders of the Pollution Control Board. 2. According to the petitioner, the building was constructed in 1981, after complying with all the Rules and Regulations and also providing adequate facility for disposal of waste. In spite of this, complaints were raised that the waste water discharged from his building complex was causing pollution in the nearby area. The District Collector, Thrissur, the 2nd respondent, who took cognizance of the issue, appointed an expert body consisting of Head of the Department of Community Medicine, Medical College, Thrissur, Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, etc., to study the problem and to submit a report suggesting the measures to be taken in order to prevent pollution, if any. The Expert Committee inspected the premises and submitted its report recommending some more measures to augment the existing system. Exhibit P1 is the copy of the report submitted by the Expert Committee on 2.7.1998. In the said report, the Committee directed the petitioner to construct some more septic tanks and sock pits. According to the petitioner, he has complied with all the directions issued by the Expert Committee and thereafter, the said Committee on inspection of the premises recorded their observations, which is evident from Exhibit P2 final report.
3. In the year 2004, the Pollution Control Board, the 4th respondent, issued Exhibit P3 letter directing the petitioner to obtain 'consent to operate' under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act, 1974. According to the petitioner, in obedience to Exhibit P3, he submitted necessary applications accompanied with all the documents for getting consent. The Officers of the 4th respondent inspected the premises in the course of processing the application and issued Exhibit P4 order directing the petitioner to provide with an effluent treatment system to treat the waste water and granted time to submit proposal for putting up the same. In obedience to Exhibit P4, the petitioner appointed an Expert Consultant who prepared a detailed project report for establishing a treatment plant. His report was produced before the 4th respondent, who approved the same and gave sanction to establish the plant. Subsequently, the 4th respondent has also issued Exhibit P5 'consent to operate'.
4. Going by Exhibit P6, the treated effluent has to be discharged through an outlet opening into the Panchayat drain. The drain lying on the side of the Panchayat road on the eastern side of the premises was subsequently blocked by one Rajendran, which caused total obstruction to the flow of water through the drain resulting in stagnation of water discharging from the petitioner's establishment. The petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.13097/2007 seeking a direction to the authorities to open the drain by removing the obstruction and this Court by Exhibit P7 order directed the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action to remove the blockage of the drain.
5. For the purpose of renewing the 'consent to operate', the petitioner filed necessary application on 31.12.2007. But the 4th respondent issued Exhibit P8 letter on a finding that the existing plant was not adequate for eliminating pollution completely and directed the petitioner to augment the plant by providing biological treatment system. Thereafter, the petitioner engaged an Expert Engineer to prepare a project report for establishing the plant, who, after a thorough study, prepared a project report in accordance with the directions of the 4th respondent. He pointed out that it was impossible to dispose of the treated water by percolation in the same premises, since the entire land was occupied by buildings and necessary sanction has to be obtained from the Board to let out the treated out water into the Panchayat drain. In such circumstances, seeking permission to discharge the treated water into the drain, the petitioner has submitted P10 request along with a detailed project report. The 4th respondent issued Exhibit P11 notice of enquiry and inspected the premises on 19.4.2008. In the meantime, the petitioner has also moved the 2nd respondent by way of Exhibit P12 representation praying for his intervention to get the blocked drain opened. While so, the petitioner received Exhibit P13 order issued by the 4th respondent directing him to close down all his establishments in the premises on the ground that he has not obeyed orders of the Pollution Control Board. It was in such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court in this Writ Petition, seeking various reliefs.
6. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 4th respondent, contending, inter alia, that on enquiry, it was noticed that part of the effluent generated was being discharged to the public drain untreated and there was no effective sludge management system and the existing treatment plant was found to be inadequate to treat the whole effluent, generated from the establishments situated in the premises. Accordingly, instructions were given on 25.7.2007 to augment the treatment plant by providing biological treatment system and territory treatment. On 30.4.2009, the petitioner has submitted a completion letter and accordingly, on 16.5.2009, the unit and premises were inspected and found that the biological treatment units were getting stabilised. But the continuous aeration and disinfection of treated water are not being practised and in such circumstances, necessary instructions were given to the petitioner, vide Annexure R4(a). It is also stated that the consent to operate the unit will be renewed only after successful completion of the effluent treatment plant.
7. The petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit stating that he has fully complied with the conditions stipulated by the 4th respondent and installed the treatment plant by spending more than ₹4 lakhs. In order to substantiate the same, the petitioner has produced Exhibits P4 to P17 documents. It is stated in the reply affidavit that no portion of the effluent is being discharged into the public drain and the entire quantity of treated water is utiilised for irrigation purposes and also for using it in toilets. Later, the petitioner has also filed I.A.No.7256/2014 producing therewith Exhibit P18 photograph of the Effluent Treatment Plant, Exhibit P19 'Consent to Operate' issued by the 4th respondent, which is valid upto 30.6.2015 and Exhibit P20 report of the Environmental Engineer submitted before the Human Rights Commission in HRMP No.1278/2009 filed by one K.K.Rajendran and Exhibit P21 is the order passed by the Commission in the said complaint.
8. On the basis of the additional documents produced along with I.A.No.7256/14, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has already complied with all the statutory requirements as well as the conditions stipulated by the 4th respondent and that he has been granted renewal of 'consent to operate' vide Exhibit P19, which is valid upto 30.6.2015. The learned counsel would further contend that the petitioner is running the establishments in the premises strictly in terms of the consent granted by the 4th respondent and there is absolutely no room for any complaint from any corner.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent.
10. When there was water pollution from the cluster building owned by the petitioner, necessary steps were initiated by the 4th respondent, by which the petitioner was asked to comply with the provisions contained in the Water(Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act, 1974. As borne out from the records, as directed by the 4th respondent, the petitioner has installed a treatment plant. Even after the installation of such treatment plant, there were water pollution and in such circumstances, the 4th respondent issued further directions by which the petitioner was asked to use biological treatment system in such a way that no water is discharged through the public drain. Thereafter, a series of inspections were conducted by the 4th respondent and the 'consent to operate' issued by the petitioner was extended for a further period upto 30.6.2015 vide Exhibit P13. One of the nearby residents approached the Human Rights Commission alleging pollution from the cluster building owned by the petitioner and as directed by the Human Rights Commission, the Environmental Engineer of the 4th respondent submitted Exhibit P20 report. Going by the said report, the 4th respondent has directed the petitioner to replace the 'T' Junction installed in the raw effluent diverting pipe line prior to the collection tank, vide letter dt.5.3.2011. During the inspection conducted on 4.6.2011, it was observed that the hotel authorities had already replaced the 'T' Junction with an 'elbow connector' complying with the direction of the 4th respondent. Therefore, the conclusion made by the Environmental Engineer of the 4th respondent in Exhibit P20 report submitted before Human Rights Commission is to the effect that there is no possibility of untreated/unauthorised discharge of effluent by bye-passing the Effluent Treatment Plant. Relying on the said report submitted by the Environmental Engineer, the Human Rights Commission by Exhibit P21 order dated 6.6.2011 closed the complaint made by the said Rajendran. A perusal of Exhibit 21 order would show that, the Deputy Director of Panchayat, Thrissur has submitted a report before the Human Rights Commission stating that there is no pollution due to the discharge of effluent from the Unit. The effluent after treatment is used for toilet flushing. From the facts brought to the notice of the Human Rights Commission, the said Commission came to the conclusion that the apprehension of the petitioner before it, i.e., one K.K.Rajendran, that the discharge of the effluent from the hotel and cinema theatre complex of the petitioner herein will cause pollution has no basis. All precautions were taken by the petitioner herein, as suggested by the 4th respondent and nothing remains to be done by him. But, regarding the public drain, the Human Rights Commission observed that the Panchayat has to comply with the suggestion made by the 4th respondent.
11. From the facts stated above, it has to be concluded that though there was water pollution from the petitioner's cluster building, subsequently, as directed by the 4th respondent, remedial measures were taken by installing appropriate effluent treatment plant and only after satisfying that the petitioner has complied with all the statutory requirements, the 4th respondent has issued Exhibit P19 'consent to operate', which is valid upto 30.6.2015. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the effluent treatment is fully functional and no waste water is discharged from the petitioner's cluster building to the public drain.
In such circumstances, if as stated before this Court, no waste water is let out from the petitioner's cluster building polluting the public drain, there is no necessity to proceed further with Exhibit P13 order issued by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of quashing Exhibit P13, order passed by the 3rd respondent. It is made clear that this will not stand in the way of respondents 2 to 4 taking any action against the petitioner, if he violates any of the conditions of Exhibit P19 'consent to operate' or causes pollution either by discharge of effluent to the nearby drain or otherwise. In which event, respondents 2 to 4 will be free to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
dsn Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE