The petitioner is the proprietor of a rubber band manufacturing unit by name “D.V.M Rubber Industries”. He complains of refusal on the part of Meenadom Grama Panchayat authorities, to renew the licence of his factory. According to the petitioner, the local residents had made serious complaints about the nuisance and pollution caused by the working of the factory. In the wake of the said complaints, the petitioner had approached the third respondent who has conducted an inspection of the factory and issued Ext.P2 consent to operate. The same is valid up to 30.6.2015. It is the case of the petitioner that, he has undertaken all necessary measures to eliminate the apprehended pollution. He has also put in place, necessary sanitary measures to ensure that there is contamination of the surrounding locality or the water in the wells of the neighbours. Reliance is placed on Ext.R1(a) resolution of the Panchayat to point out that, despite compliance with all the conditions specified by the statutory authorities who are competent to enquire into and ascertain whether the unit was capable of causing pollution, his licence has not been renewed. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the issue of appropriate directions for the renewal of his licence. Adv.M.Ajay appears for the third respondent. 2. According to the counsel, the petitioner's unit has complied with all the measures suggested by the third respondent for the purpose of eliminating pollution from the unit. It was in the said circumstances that, Ext.P2 consent to operate was issued to the petitioner. Therefore, the third respondent has no objection to the licence of the petitioner being renewed.
3. Adv. Mathew John appears for respondents 1 and 2. A counter affidavit has been filed producing Ext.R1(a) resolution of the Panchayat. It has been mentioned in the resolution of the Panchayat, that the petitioner has taken necessary steps to ensure that the unit does not cause pollution to the people of the locality. What remains to be undertaken is the construction of compound walls of the required height, to ensure that no pollution is caused to the people of the locality. According to the counsel for the petitioner Smt.R. Bindu the said measures have also been taken and completed after the date of Ext.R1(a).
4. I.A.6781/2014 has been filed by an Association and another person claiming to be interested in the subject matter of this writ petition. Adv.A.Sreekala appears for the persons who have sought to get themselves impleaded. According to the counsel, the unit of the petitioner causes a lot of pollution and nuisance to the residents of the locality. The panchayat authorities were only colluding with the petitioner to make it appear that, the unit is not capable of causing pollution.
5. Heard. It is not in dispute that the third respondent is the authority that is competent under the statute, to ascertain whether a unit is capable of causing pollution or nuisance. The said authority has inspected the factory of the petitioner, suggested remedial measures, and ensured that the remedial measures have already been put in place, to see that there is no pollution from the unit. Accordingly Ext.P2 consent is issued to the petitioner. The statutory competent authority having certified the unit to be safe, I do not consider it necessary to make any further inquiries, to ascertain whether the said conclusions are right or not. The third respondent is the technically competent person to ascertain whether the unit is causing pollution or not. The only reason stated in Ext.R1(a) for not having renewed the licence of the petitioner is the pendency of the writ petition before this Court. It shall no doubt be open to the Panchayat authorities to inspect the petitioner's unit at any time to ascertain whether the measures to control and contain the pollution are effective or not. The third respondent shall also be at liberty to make periodic inspections to find out whether the unit is functioning without causing pollution to the people of the locality. That apart, it is not open to the members of the local public to insist that no licence should be granted to the petitioner even after the statutorily empowered authority certifies the unit to be fit for the grant of a licence.
5. The above being the position, it is only appropriate that respondents 1 and 2 considers the application for renewal of licence submitted by the petitioner and passes appropriate orders thereon, without further delay, in the light of Ext.P2 consent as well as the report of the District Medical Officer and other officers concerned.
This writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the application for renewal of licence submitted by the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
jj /True copy/ Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge