Kuttan Pillai and others v State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** **W.P.(C)No.28014 OF 2018(B)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 KUTTAN PILLAI, AGED 91 YEARS, JAYABHAVAN, VADAKKADATHUKAVU P.O. ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 691526** - **2 SUJA B., AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.LATE K.MOHANKUMAR, 'VAISAKH, VADAKKADATHUKAVU P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMHITTTA DISTRICT-691526** - **3 LATHIKA KUMARI S., AGED 38 YEARS W/O.SUNIL KUMAR, REVATHI, VADAKKADATHUKAVU P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 691526** - **4 ANJALI R.KRISHNAN, AGED 28 YEARS W/O.ASOK KUMAR, SANTHA BHAVAN, VADAKKADATHUKAVU P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691526** - **5 G.RAVEENDRA KURUPU, AGED 67 YEARS S/O.GOPALA KURUP, KALLEELIL, VADAKKADATHUKAVU P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691526** - **6 M.ALAMMA, AGED 78 YEARS W/O.LATE V.O.THANKACHAN, KULANJUMOOTTIL, VADAKKADATHUKAVU P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691526** - **7 M.K.SIVAN PILLAI, AGED 80 YEARS S/O.RAMAN PILLAI , SREEMANDIRAM, VADAKKADATHUKAVU P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691526** **BY ADVS. SRI.R.RENJITH SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.P.R.JAYASANKAR** W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 2 ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001** - **2 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICE, OPPOSITE GENERAL HOSPITAL, K.K.NAIR ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645** - **3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645** - **4 ERATH GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VADAKKADATHUKAVU P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691526** - **5 THE SECRETARY ERATHU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VADAKKADATHUKAVU P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691526** - **6 SHINY VARGHESE W/O.REJI V.SAMUEL, M/S.STEEL CITY INDUSTRIES, VADAKADATHUCAVU P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691529** - **7 REJI V.SAMUEL, M/S.STEEL CITY INDUSTRIES, VADAKADATHUCAVU P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691529** ## **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **R1-2 BY SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, R4-5 BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ R6-7 BY ADV. D. KISHORE SMT A.C.VIDHYA- GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3011-2020, THE COURT ON 17-12-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners, who are residents near a steel rolling shutter manufacturing unit run by respondents 6 and 7, namely, M/s. Steel City Industries, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P23 communication dated 30.07.2018 issued by the Environmental Engineer in the District Office of the 2[nd] respondent Kerala State Pollution Control Board at Pathanamthitta and Ext.P24 consent to operate - renewal dated 30.07.2018 issued by the Environmental Engineer of the 2[nd] respondent Pollution Control Board to the steel rolling shutter manufacturing unit run by respondents 6 and 7. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent to conduct fresh inspection of the industrial unit in question, in order to ascertain the sound level, with notice to the petitioners, in the presence of an Advocate Commissioner. 2. On 17.08.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 and 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board took notice for the 2[nd] respondent. This Court issued urgent W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 4 notice by speed post to respondents 4 to 7, returnable within three weeks. 3. The 2[nd] respondent has filed a counter affidavit, through the learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed counter affidavit, through the learned Standing Counsel for Erathu Grama Panchayat. The party respondent, namely, respondents 6 and 7 have also filed counter affidavit opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The petitioners have filed reply affidavit to the counter affidavits filed by the respondents. 4. The petitioners have filed I.A.No.1 of 2018, seeking an order to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. By the order dated 29.07.2020, this Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the industrial unit of respondents 6 and 7 and submit a report before this Court. The said order reads thus; “This is an application filed by the writ petitioners, seeking an order to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to conduct local inspection and submit a detailed report on the matters enumerated in the interlocutory application, in relation to the functioning of a rolling shutter and accessories manufacturing unit run by respondents 6 and 7. Today, the W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 5 learned counsel for the petitioners has filed an additional work memo. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 3; the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent Pollution Control Board; the learned Standing Counsel for the Grama Panchayat, representing respondents 4 and 5; and also the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7. 3. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds that, for a proper adjudication of the issues raised in this writ petition in relation to the small scale industrial unit run by respondents 6 and 7, it is necessary to obtain local inspection report, by deputing an Advocate Commissioner. 4. In such circumstances, Sri. Vipin Narayan (K-851/07), a lawyer of this Court is appointed as the Advocate Commissioner, who shall conduct an inspection of the small scale industrial unit run by respondents 6 and 7, in the presence of an authorised representative of the writ petitioners, the concerned Environmental Engineer of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat and also an authorised representative of respondents 6 and 7. The officials of the Pollution Control Board shall conduct noise test using sound level meter, in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner. 5. The Advocate Commissioner shall fix the date and time of inspection and give notice of inspection to the learned counsel on both sides, three days in advance. The learned counsel for the petitioners shall submit a consolidated work W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 6 memo to the Advocate Commissioner and it would be open to the learned counsel/Standing Counsel for the respondents to submit work memo. 6. The learned counsel on both sides shall serve a copy of their respective pleadings to the Advocate Commissioner, within three days. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board and also the learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent Grama Panchayat shall ensure that the concerned officials of the Pollution Control Board and the Grama Panchayat are personally present at the industrial unit, at the time of inspection, with relevant files, to render necessary assistance to the Advocate Commissioner.” 8. Both sides shall ensure that at the time of inspection by the Advocate Commissioner, there is no violation of COVID19 protocol. 9. The Advocate Commissioner shall submit his report along with the plan and photographs, before this Court, within a period of two weeks. 10. The initial remuneration payable to the Advocate Commissioner is fixed as Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) including travelling and other expenses, which shall be paid by the writ petitioners, before the date of inspection.” 5. Pursuant to that order the Advocate Commissioner conducted inspection, with the assistance of the concerned officers, and the report of the Advocate Commissioner is placed on record on 11.09.2020, followed by an additional report dated 14.09.2020. W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 7 The petitioners have filed their objection dated 29.09.2020 to the report of the Advocate Commissioner. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 3; the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board for the 2[nd] respondent; the learned Standing Counsel for Erathu Grama Panchayat for respondents 4 and 5; and also the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7. 7. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P23 communication dated 30.07.2018 issued by the Environmental Engineer in the District Office of the 2[nd] respondent Kerala State Pollution Control Board and Ext.P24 consent to operate - renewal dated 30.07.2018 issued by the Environmental Engineer to the steel rolling shutter manufacturing unit run by respondents 6 and 7, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Ext.P23 communication dated 30.07.2018 is one issued by the Environmental Engineer of the 2[nd] respondent Pollution Control Board, pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P22 W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 8 judgment of this Court dated 12.06.2018 in W.P.(C)No.13240 of 2018. Ext.P24 consent to operate – renewal issued to the steel rolling shutter manufacturing unit run by respondents 6 and 7 is one based on Ext.P23 decision taken by the Environmental Engineer on the objections raised by the petitioners against renewal of the consent to operate. Paragraph 5 of Ext.P22 judgment reads thus; “5. On a consideration of facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that inasmuch as the activities of the 6[th] and 7[th] respondents for the year 2017-18 are concerned, it is not in dispute that they are carrying on activities pursuant to consent issued by the Pollution Control Board as also D&O licence issued by the respondent Panchayat. The validity of both the licence and consent expires on 30.06.2018, and it is stated that the said respondents have preferred applications before the Pollution Control Board as also the respondent Panchayat seeking a renewal of the consent/D&O licence. Taking note of the apprehension of the petitioners as regards the noncompliance by the 6[th] and 7[th] respondents with the conditions stipulated in the consent order of the Pollution Control Board as also the D&O licence issued by the Panchayat, I deem it in the interests of justice to direct the 2[nd] respondent as also the 5[th] respondent to take note of the objections of the petitioners also while considering any application submitted by the 6[th] and 7[th] respondents for renewal of the W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 9 consent/D&O licence issued to them by the respective statutory authority. The said respondents shall while passing orders on the applications for renewal of the consent/D&O licence, take note of the objections preferred by the petitioners and pass a detailed order, after hearing the petitioners as also 6th and 7[th] respondents, dealing with the specific objections pointed out by the petitioners, in the order passed by them. It will be open to the petitioners also to produce additional materials to substantiate their contentions on merits as against the activities of the 6[th] and 7[th] respondents. The 2[nd] and 5[th] respondents shall intimate the date of hearing to the 6[th] and 7[th] respondents as also the petitioners well in advance so as to conduct an effective hearing in the matter before passing orders on the application submitted by the 6[th] and 7[th] respondents. The petitioners shall produce copy of the writ petition and judgment before respondents for further action.” 9. Pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P22 judgment, the Environmental Engineer conducted a personal hearing on 03.07.2018, as evidenced by Ext.R6(x) minutes, followed by an inspection in the steel rolling shutter manufacturing unit run by respondents 6 and 7, on 04.07.2018. Thereafter, the Environmental Engineer issued Ext.P23 communication dated 30.07.2018, followed by Ext.P24 consent to operate - renewal dated 30.07.2018 issued to the steel rolling shutter manufacturing W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 10 unit run by respondents 6 and 7, which is valid up to 30.06.2023. 10. During the course of arguments, one of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board, while issuing Ext.P23 communication, has not adverted to the objections raised by the petitioners against renewal of the consent to operate issued to the steel rolling shutter manufacturing unit run by respondents 6 and 7. Therefore, interference is warranted on Ext.P23 and also Ext.P24, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. The learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 would point out that, as evident from Ext.R6(x) minutes of the personal hearing conducted on 03.07.2018, the Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board has dealt with appropriately the objections raised by the petitioners. A copy of Ext.R6(x) minutes was marked to the petitioners and also to respondents 6 and 7. The learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 would submit that a copy of Ext.R6(x) minutes and the noise test results were enclosed along with Ext.P23. The learned counsel would also point out that, a copy of the said minutes is placed on record as Ext.R5(b), along W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 11 with the counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 and 5, through the learned Standing Counsel for Erathu Grama Panchayat. 12. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 29.07.2020 in I.A.No.1 of 2018, the Advocate Commissioner conducted inspection with the assistance of the concerned officers, and the report of the Advocate Commissioner dated 08.09.2020 is placed on record on 11.09.2020, followed by an additional report dated 14.09.2020. Along with the report dated 08.09.2020, the Advocate Commissioner has produced Ext.C3 printouts taken from the sound level meter, showing sound level measurements while the industrial unit was not functioning; and Ext.C4 printouts showing sound level measurements while the industrial unit was functioning. Along with the additional report dated 14.09.2020, the Advocate Commissioner has produced Ext.C6 printouts showing sound level measurements taken from the residential buildings of petitioners 1 and 2, while vehicles are plying through MC Road. 13. Relying on the sound level measurements in Exts.C3, C4 and C6 printouts, the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 would contend that the factual findings of the Environmental W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 12 Engineer of the Pollution Control Board in Ext.P23 communication and Ext.R6(x) minutes, while rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners against renewal of the consent to operate issued to the steel rolling shutter manufacturing unit run by respondents 6 and 7, cannot be said to be perverse or patently illegal or vitiated by an error apparent on the face of record, warranting interference invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel would also point out the specific contention raised in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 6 and 7 on 04.10.2018, as to maintainability of this writ petition, in view of the statutory remedy available against Exts.P23 and P24. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the petitioners have already filed their objection dated 29.09.2020 to the report of the Advocate Commissioner, in which it is pointed out that the sound level measurements were taken while the industrial unit was not functioning in full swing. Some of the machinery were removed by respondents 6 and 7 before inspection. Activities such as hammering, grinding and handling of raw materials were not undertaken at the time of inspection. W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 13 Further, the machine used for sound level measurement is not self-calibrating. As per Annexure-2 user manual, it has to be calibrated before each measurement. 15. In **M. Mahshook Rahman v. City Police Commissioner, Vazhuthacuad and others [2020 (5) KHC** **363]** , this Court held that the right to live in an atmosphere free from noise pollution is a fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and noise pollution beyond permissible limits is an inroad into that right. The fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on any occupation, trade or business is not absolute. Any attempt to create noise by amplifying the sound with the help of hi-fi amplifier systems and loudspeakers or even the playing of high sound instruments like drums, tom toms, trumpets, bugles and the like which create noise beyond tolerable limits, thereby compulsorily exposing other unwilling persons to hear noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels, will amount to violation of their right to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution-free life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the said decision read thus; W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 14 “12. In **Forum, Prevention of Environmental and Sound Pollution v. Union of India [(2005) 5 SCC 733]** the Apex Court noticed that those who make noise often take shelter behind Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India pleading freedom of speech and right to expression. Undoubtedly, the freedom of speech and right to expression are fundamental rights but the rights are not absolute. Nobody can claim a fundamental right to create noise by amplifying the sound of his speech with the help of loudspeakers. While one has a right to speech, others have a right to listen or decline to listen. Nobody can be compelled to listen and nobody can claim that he has a right to make his voice trespass into the ears or mind of others. Nobody can indulge in aural aggression. If anyone increases his volume of speech and that too with the assistance of artificial devices so as to compulsorily expose unwilling persons to hear a noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels, then the person speaking is violating the right of others to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution-free life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 19(1)(a) cannot be pressed into service for defeating the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21. ## 13. In **Forum, Prevention of Environmental and Sound** **Pollution** the Apex Court, in the context of noise pollution in public place vis-a-vis right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, observed that Indian judicial opinion has been uniform in recognising the right to live in freedom from noise pollution as a fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution, and noise W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 15 pollution beyond permissible limits as an inroad into that right. People indulge in making noise beyond tolerable limits and create a health hazard unmindful of consequences which are likely to befall not only others but also themselves who create noise. Not only the use of loudspeakers and playing of hi-fi amplifier systems has to be regulated, even the playing of high sound instruments like drums, tom-toms, trumpets, bugles and the like which create noise beyond tolerable limits need to be regulated. The law enforcing agencies must be equipped with necessary instruments and facilities out of which sound level meters conforming to the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) code are a bare necessity. 14. The right to live in an atmosphere free from noise pollution is a fundamental right protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and noise pollution beyond permissible limits is an inroad into that right. The fundamental right guaranteed to the 3rd respondent under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on any occupation, trade or business is not absolute. Any attempt by the 3rd respondent to create noise by amplifying the sound with the help of hi-fi amplifier systems and loudspeakers in his convention centre or even the playing of high sound instruments like drums, tom toms, trumpets, bugles and the like which create noise beyond tolerable limits, thereby compulsorily exposing the petitioner and other unwilling persons to hear noise raised to unpleasant or obnoxious levels, will amount to violation of their right to a peaceful, comfortable and pollution-free life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” 16. In exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 16 Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the factual findings of the Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board in Ext.P23 communication, while rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners against renewal of the consent to operate issued to the steel rolling shutter manufacturing unit run by respondents 6 and 7. In regard to a finding of fact recorded in Ext.P23, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if the authority, in recording such a finding, has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law. 17. Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 deals with appeals. As per sub-section (1) of Section 31, any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Board under this Act may, within thirty days from the date on which the order is communicated to him, prefer appeal to the Appellate Authority, as the State Government may think fit to constitute. As per the proviso to sub-section (1), the Appellate Authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if such authority is satisfied that the appellant W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 17 was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. 18. The Appellate Authority constituted under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act can certainly sit in appeal over the factual findings of the Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board in Ext.P23 communication, while rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners against renewal of the consent to operate issued to the steel rolling shutter manufacturing unit run by respondents 6 and 7. Ext.P24 consent to operate – renewal issued to the steel rolling shutter manufacturing unit run by respondents 6 and 7 can also be challenged in an appeal filed under Section 31 of the said Act. 19. In **Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Das Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603]** the Apex Court held that nonentertainment of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule and self imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the existence of alternative remedy. However, High Court must not W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 18 interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same, unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exists sufficient ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. 20. In **Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [(2018) 3 SCC 85]** the Apex Court reiterated that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not absolute but has to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in accordance with law. The normal rule is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be entertained if alternative statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well defined exceptions as observed in **Chaabil Das Agarwal** , i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. The High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 19 effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the Statute under which the action complained of contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. 21. In the result, this writ petition filed on 16.08.2018 is disposed of by relegating the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, in order to challenge the factual findings of the Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board in Ext.P23 communication, while rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners against renewal of the consent to operate issued to the steel rolling shutter manufacturing unit run by respondents 6 and 7, and also to challenge Ext.P24 consent to operate – renewal issued to the steel rolling shutter manufacturing unit run by respondents 6 and 7. The petitioners shall file appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and the Appellate Authority shall consider the same an pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioners, the W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 20 concerned Environmental Engineer, the Secretary of Erathu Grama Panchayat and also respondents 6 and 7, as expeditiously as possible. The legal and factual contentions raised by both sides are left open to be raised before the Appellate Authority. No order as to costs. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** yd W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 21 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CONSENT TO**| |---|---| ||**OPERATE ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL**| ||**BOARD ON 24/2/2005**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CIRCULAR**| ||**DATED 9/8/2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LOCATION**| ||**SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 6**| ||**AND 7 ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION SEEKING**| ||**CONSENT**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING THE**| ||**DISTANCE BETWEEN THE UNIT AND THE HOUSE**| ||**OF THE 2ND PETITIONER**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE**| ||**DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BOUNDARY WALL OF**| ||**THE PROPERTY OF THE PARTY RESPONDERS AND**| ||**THE BUILDING SITUATED**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LOCATION**| ||**SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 6**| ||**AND 7**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7**| ||**BEFORE THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE ON**| ||**24/12/2004**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AGREEMENT**| ||**STATED TO HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BETWEEN**| ||**RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 ON 21/3/2013**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE**| ||**REPRESENTATION DATED 20/7/2016 SUBMITTED**| ||**BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH**| ||**RESPONDENT**| W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 22 |**EXHIBIT P10**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE**| |---|---| ||**NOTICE DATED 30/1/2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION**| ||**DATED 27/3/2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RELEVANT**| ||**PROVISION OF THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE**| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CONSENT**| ||**VARIATION ORDER NO. ICO/PTA/637/R2/17**| ||**ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER**| ||**PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 2/6/2017**| ||**IN WP(C) NO.18394 OF 2017**| |**EXHIBIT P15**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER**| ||**DATED 15/6/2017 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE**| ||**COURT IN WPC NOS. 19768 OF 2017 AND**| ||**18394 OF 2017**| |**EXHIBIT P16**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT**| ||**PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON**| ||**12/3/2018 IN WPC NOS. 19768 OF 2017 AND**| ||**18394 OF 2017**| |**EXHIBIT P17**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION**| ||**DATED 21/8/2017 ISSUED BY THE GENERAL**| ||**MANAGER OF THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES**| ||**CENTRE, PATHANAMTHITTA TO THE 5TH**| ||**RESOLVENT**| |**EXHIBIT P18**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CONSENT TO**| ||**OPERATE (RENEWAL) ISSUED TO M/S STEEL**| ||**CITY INDUSTRIES**| |**EXHIBIT P19**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LOCATION**| ||**SKETCH SUBMITTED BY M/S STEEL CITY AT**| ||**THE TIME OF RENEWAL**| W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 23 |**EXHIBIT P20**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION**| |---|---| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE**| ||**THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE**| ||**2ND RESPONDENT BOARD**| |**EXHIBIT P21**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ANSWERS GIVEN**| ||**BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE**| ||**2ND RESPONDENT BOARD.**| |**EXHIBIT P22**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT**| ||**PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON**| ||**12/6/2018 IN WPC NO.13240 OF 2018**| |**EXHIBIT P23**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.**| ||**PCB/PTA/ICO/600/2009 DATED 30/7/2018**| ||**ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,**| ||**KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO**| ||**THE 1ST.**| |**EXHIBIT P24**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CONSENT TO**| ||**OPERATE - RENEWAL NO.FILE NO.**| ||**PCB/PTA/ICO/600/2009 DATED 30/7/2018**| ||**ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO M/S**| ||**STEEL CITY.**| |**EXHIBIT P25**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE D&o LICENSE**| ||**DATED 21.05.2016, 17.03.2016 &**| ||**17.08.2016 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT.**| |**EXHIBIT P26**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION**| ||**NO.A5-200/19 DATED 07.06.2019.**| |**EXHIBIT P27**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE D&O LICENSE**| ||**ISSUED BY THE ERATH GRAMA PANCHAYAT.**| |**EXHIBIT P28**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOISE TEST**| ||**RESULT PREPARED BY TEH ASSITANT**| ||**ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL**| ||**BOARD.**| |**EXHIBIT P28**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RELEVANT**| ||**PAGES OF CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT BAORD ON 31.08.2016.**| W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 24 **EXHIBIT P29 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE (RENEWAL) ISSUED TO M/S.STEEL CITY ON 27.02.2010.** **EXHIBIT P30 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT ON** **24.04.2015 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P31 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF INSPECTION REPORT OF THE OFFICIALS OF THE BOARD.** **EXHIBIT P32** - **TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT CONDUCTED BY THE ASSISTANT SCIENTIST ON 04.07.2018.** - **2ND RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.PCB/GEN/C/1/2003 DATED 21.07.2003 OF THE BOARD.** **EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPIES OF THE RESULTS OF THE NOISE LEVEL MONITORING CONDUCTED.** **6TH AND 7TH RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT R6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 02.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTIRES.** - **EXHIBIT R6(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS.** **EXHIBIT R6(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT.** **EXHIBIT R6(D) TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R6(E) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 20.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTIRES AND COMMERCE.** W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 25 **EXHIBIT R6(F)** **TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R6(G) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.03.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R6(H) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGING EXT.R6(G).** - **EXHIBIT R6(I) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R6(J) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R6(K) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R6(L) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.04.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R6(M) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R6(N) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.PCB/PTA/ICO/600/2009 DATED 12.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R6(O) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.06.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R6(P) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A6/1263/2017 DATED 12.06.2017 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R6(Q) TRUE COPY OF THEORDER DATED 15.06.2017 IN WP.(C)19678 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 26 **EXHIBIT R6(R) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT VARIATION ORDER DATED 12.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R6(S) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 25.08.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R6(T) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C)19768/2017.** - **EXHIBIT R6(U) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.03.2018 IN W.P.(C)19768/2017 AND CONNECTED CASE.** - **EXHIBIT R6(V) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 03.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R6(W) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF FEE FOR RENEWAL OF LICENCE.** - **EXHIBIT R6(X) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEARING CONDUCTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 03.07.2018.** - **EXHIBIT R6(Y) TRUE COPY OF THE NOISE TEST RESULT DATED 08.05.2018 CONDUCTED BY THE ASSISTANT SCIENTIST OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R6(Z) TRUE COPY OF THE NOISE TEST RESULT DATED 21.06.2017 CONDUCTED BY THE ASSISTANT SCIENTIST OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R6(AA) TRUE COPY OF THE NOISE TEST RESULT DATED 04.07.2017 CONDUCTED BY TEH ASSISTANT SCIENTIST OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R6(AB) TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE-RENEWAL ORDER DATED 30.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R6(AC) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 03.05.2018 WHICH HAS BEEN EXTENDED UPTO 31.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** W.P.(C)No.28014 of 2018 27 **EXHIBIT R6(AD) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.C/3245/14 DATED 16.08.2017 OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTIRES CENTRE. EXHIBIT R6(AE) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, KERALA STATE COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRMP NO.6915/03/LA1/2017.** **EXHIBIT R6(AF) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 30.03.2019 ISSUED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS.** **EXHIBIT R6(AG) TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DATED 14.08.2019 EVIDENCIN THE REMITTANCE OF ADVACNE LICENSE FEE BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** ## **4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R5(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO VIDE ORDER NO.A6-1263/2017 DATED 12.06.2017. EXHIBIT R5(B) THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 03.07.2018 OF THE HEARING CONDUCTED IN THE CHAMBER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE**