N. Jamaludeen vs Palamel Grama Panchayath, Pollution Control Board, Environmental Engineer, Pollution Control and Sainudheen

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The petitioner approached this Court complaining that the 4th respondent is conducting a saw mill without obtaining licence from the 1st respondent and without permission of the 2nd respondent. It was also pointed out that inspite of complaint, no action has been taken from the Panchayat to stop the functioning of the saw mill.

The Panchayat as well as the additional 5th respondent have filed counter affidavits. There is a report filed by the 3rd respondent also.

The learned Counsel for the Panchayat submitted that the saw mill was functioning for last 31 years and the deceased father of the 5th respondent was renewing the licence from time to time. The learned Counsel for the additional 5th respondent submitted that the petitioner is his maternal uncle and the Writ Petition itself was filed after the death of the 4th respondent. From the averments of the counter affidavit of the 5th respondent and that of the Panchayat, it is evident that the the saw mill was started in the year 1978 in the name and style M.S. Wood Industries. The deceased 4th respondent was running the saw mill with all licenses. In Ext.R5(f) is the renewal of consent to operate saw mill issued by the Pollution Control Board, which is valid upto 30.6.2012. R5(g) is the copy of the licence issued by the Panchayat which is valid from 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011.

The learned Counsel for the Panchayat submitted that a prescribed time schedule has been made applicable for running the saw mill and Ext.R1(G) has been produced in support of the above claim; a letter issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat, to the petitioner itself stating that instructions have been given for functioning of the saw mill from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m .

Along with the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat Exts.R1(A) to R1(F) have been produced to show that the saw mill was being run with all licences from time to time and the same have been renewed from time to time.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the saw mill is being run from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., there will not be any grievance for the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the additional 5th respondent submitted that it is only because of the personal differences the Writ Petition itself has been filed and there is no real grievance for the petitioner as they are close relatives and all the aspects with respects to the running of the saw mill was within his knowledge also. Whatever that be, as it is revealed that the saw mill has been functioning with all the licences and consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in regard to the absence of any licence.

Therefore, it is not necessary to issue any particular direction to the Panchayat or Pollution Control Board. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the Panchayat that instructions have been given to run the saw mill from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. is recorded. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.