Ashok Bhushan, Ag.CJ
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7, learned counsel appearing for the 8th respondent and the learned Government Pleader.
2. By this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to render adequate and meaningful protection to the petitioner and his workers for the operation of the unit covered by Exts.P1 to P6 and P9. Petitioner's case in the writ petition is that he is running a small scale hollow bricks unit in his family property comprised in Sy.No.48/5 of Kunnathunad village. He claims to have obtained consent from the Panchayath as well as the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. He has obtained other necessary No Objection Certificates as well. The allegation is that when the petitioner started operation of the unit, respondents 4 to 7 and a group of people created obstruction in the running of the unit. Petitioner submitted a petition before the 2nd respondent, but no action has been taken so far.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 4 to 7 wherein it is stated that running of hollow bricks factory would cause severe air and water pollution in the locality causing severe health hazards. It has further been stated that the licence/consent has been obtained without proper inspection of the site and without considering all relevant aspects of the matter. An allegation has further been made that correct distance from the hollow bricks factory of the petitioner and the house of the respondents has not been mentioned in the site plan.
4. In the Counter affidavit, however, there is no reference to any complaint submitted to the Panchayath or to the Pollution Control Board. From the materials on record, it does appear that the petitioner has obtained necessary consent or licence to run the unit which is still in tact. If respondents 4 to 7 have any grievance, the remedy was to file appropriate objection or appeal against the consent/licence before the competent authority. When necessary consent/licence is already obtained by the petitioner, respondents 4 to 7 cannot be allowed to create any physical obstruction in the running of the unit.
5. In view of the aforesaid, we direct respondents 2 to 3 to extend adequate protection to the petitioner to run his unit without any obstruction from respondents 4 to 7. Respondents 4 to 7 are also at liberty to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
(sd/-) (ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr