M/S. SOUTHERN REFINERIES LTD. v. PARASSALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2014/21ST CHAITHRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 338 of 2012 (N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- M/S. SOUTHERN REFINERIES LTD. AGED 47 YEARS KLUZHINJANVILA, PARASALA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 502 REPRESENTED BY ITS GROUP MANAGER (FINANCE & MIS) MR.SREEKUMAR J. BY ADVS.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. PARASSALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARASSALA-695 502 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PLAMOODU JUNCTION, PATTOM PALACE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4. STHANUPRASAD, PALAVILAKATHU VEEDU, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 502. 5. MR.SREEKANDAN, KUZHINJAVILA VEEDU, KEEZHETHOTTAM, PARASSALA P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 502. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI. M.AJAY,SC,KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.V.ELIAS R2 BY SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC,POLL.CONTROL BOARD R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-04-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 338 of 2012 (N) **A P P E N D I X** ## PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS - EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP 3294/95, DTD.7.1.1997. - EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAST SUCH CONSENT TO OPERATE/AUTHORISATION DTD.27.8.09 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BOARD. - EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DTD.23.1.2007. - EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF A LICENCE FOR THE QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS CERTIFICATION DTD.7.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS. - EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DTD.5.6.2003 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. - EXT.P5(a): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DTD.5.6.2006 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. - EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION, DTD.28.12.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT. - EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION ON 10.1.2011. - EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.28.2.2011 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER. - EXT.P8(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PANCHAYAT RESOLUTION DTD.1.2.2011 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT. - EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ENVELOPE (BOTH SIDES) INDICATING THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE PETITIONER. - EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.9.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT. - EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 9.2.1995. - EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 3.12.1998. - EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF AUTHORISATION ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD UNDER THE HAZARDOUS WASTE (MANAGEMENT AND HANDLING) RULES, 1989 DATED 8.7.1996 (WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 9.7.1996). - EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF AUTHORISATION ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD UNDER THE HAZARDOUS WASTE (MANAGEMENT AND HANDLING) RULES, 1989 DT.25.7.1998. - EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF A COMMUNICATION DT.17.1.12 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, TALUK HOSPITAL PARASSALA IN RESPONSE TO THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION. WP(C).No. 338 of 2012 (N) : 2 : EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY OF IIT, CHENNAI ISSUED IN DEEMBER 1996. COPY OF REPLY AFFIDAVIT DATED 30.03.2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2[ND] RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION (ALONG WITH EXT.P17). - EXT.P17: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT.5.3.12 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO EXT.R2(2) NOTICE. EXT.P18: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.17.4.12 SENT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMPANY TO THE SECRETARY OF THE PANCHAYAT. - EXT.P19: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.17.4.12 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. - EXT.P20: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.19.04.12 ALONG WITH ITS ENCLOSURE ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.P21: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.20.04.12 ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER OF THE BOARD. - EXT.P22: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.28.4.12 SENT BY THE BOARD TO THE SECRETARY OF THE PANCHAYAT. - EXT.P23: TRUE COPY of the LETTER DT.30.4.12 SENT BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMPANY TO THE SECRETARY OF THE PANCHAYAT. - EXT.P24: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT.9.5.12 PASSED BY THE PANCHAYAT. - EXT.P25: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.19.9.12 ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER OF THE BOARD. - EXT.P26: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.27.9.12 ADDRESSED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER OF THE BOARD. - EXT.P27: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.5.10.12 ADDRESSED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER. - EXT.P28: TRUE COPY OF A BRIEF NOTE ON THE WORKING OF THE BIO-FILTER ASSEMBLY. - EXT.P29: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.23.2.13 FOR RENEWAL OF LICENSE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEEFORE THE PANCHAYAT. - EXT.P30: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.11.3.13 SENT BY THE PANCHAYAT RETURNING THE APPLICATYION. - EXT.P31: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.1.7.13 PASSED BY THE PARASSALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REJECTING THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION. - EXT.P32: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT.25.6.13 PASSED BY THE PARASSALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. ## 1ST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R1(a):TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.13.12.11 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. WP(C).No. 338 of 2012 (N) : 3 : EXT.R1(b):TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT.19.12.11 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT TALUK HOSPITAL, PARASSALA. EXT.R1(c):TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.13.1.12 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, TALUK HOSPITAL, PARASSALA. EXT.R1(d): TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE DT.25.6.13. ## 2ND RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R2(1): TRUE COPY OF THE ANALYSIS REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE KERALA POLLUTION BOARD DATED NIL. EXT.R2(2): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/TV M-DO/CO/6257/07 DT.9.2.12. ANNEX.R2(1): TRUE COPY OF THE MONITORING REPORT OF THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEX.R2(2): TRUE COPYOF THE CIRCULAR PCB/T4/115/97 DT.20.7.11. ## 4TH RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXT.R4: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DT.6.8.12 IN CONT.CASE NO.1060/12 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DT.25.1.13 IN CONT.CASE NO.1060/12 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.R4(b): TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DT.21.5.13 IN CONT.CASE NO.164/13 BEFORE THE HGIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.R4(c): TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DT.6.10.12 IN CONT.CASE NO.1366/12 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.R4(d): TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT.25.1.99 PASSED BY THE PARASSALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R4(e): TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.29.12.11. EXT.R4(f): TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DT.9.12.11. EXT.R4(g): TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.NIL FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER BY THE LOCAL RESIDENTS. /TRUE COPY/ P.S TO JUDGE **K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] April, 2014** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner herein is a Public Limited Company. The petitioner challenges the action of the 1[st] respondent Panchayat in refusing to renew the license to conduct its factory located within the limits of the 1[st] respondent Panchayat. The Panchayat has refused to renew the license alleging that due to the pollution caused by the working of the factory, a number of people living in the vicinity have fallen sick. There is a further allegation that the water in the wells nearby has been contaminated by the presence of oil. There has been a public outcry and agitation against the company. Therefore, the Panchayat has, considering all the above aspects, declined to renew the license to the petitioner's factory. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the said action. 2 **W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N** 2. The petitioner is engaged in the process of refining waste oil or used oil in its factory. The factory was established in the year 1993. In 1995, the 1[st] respondent Panchayat refused to renew the license of the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P(c) No.3294 of 1995. The said Writ Petition was allowed by this Court by Ext.P1 judgment. The Panchayat was directed to renew the license of the petitioner, provided the necessary permission or consent was obtained from the 2[nd] respondent - the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. According to the petitioner, the 2[nd] respondent has granted the necessary consent to the petitioner. Ext.P2 consent was valid till June, 2012. Despite the grant of Ext.P2 consent, the application for renewal submitted by the petitioner on 05.01.2011 was rejected by Ext.P8. The petitioner thereupon filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P8. The contention of the petitioner is that, since no orders were passed on its application for license by the Panchayat within the period of 30 days stipulated by Section 236 of the **W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N** 3 Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act' for short), the petitioner had become entitled to the benefit of the deemed license that is stipulated by sub section 3 of Section 236. Therefore, the issue of Ext.P8, after the deemed license had accrued to the petitioner, was of no consequence, it is contended. In view of the fact that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of a deemed license, the factory continued to function in spite of Ext.P8 rejection of the application for renewal. In the above circumstances, as per Ext.P10 stop memo dated 19.11.2011, the petitioner was directed to stop functioning of the factory. Accordingly, the factory was closed and continues to remain closed to this date. 3. In the Writ Petition, as per order dated 12.04.2012, this Court had directed the petitioner to obtain consent from the Pollution Control Board and to move the Panchayat thereafter for renewal of the license. The request for renewal was also directed to be considered. Accordingly, the petitioner requested the Pollution Control 4 **W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N** Board to conduct an inspection. An inspection was thereupon conducted and by Ext.P20 dated 19.04.2012, the petitioner was directed by the Pollution Control Board to comply with certain conditions. Among others, the petitioner was directed to provide Bio Filters for reducing the problem of odour. The sand filter and soak pit system were directed to be maintained properly. As per Ext.P21, the petitioner informed the Pollution Control Board that, the directions in Ext.P20 would be complied with. Information of the conditions stipulated was communicated to the Panchayat by the Pollution Control Board as per Ext.P22 dated 28.04.2012. Thereafter, by an interim order dated 15.06.2012, this Court directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to enter the factory for complying with the directions of the Pollution Control Board. On the Pollution Control Board confirming compliance with its directions, it was ordered that the Panchayat shall consider and pass orders on the application for renewal of license submitted by the petitioner. 5 **W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N** 4. Pursuant to the above direction, the Panchayat considered the application of the petitioner and rejected the same by Ext.P24 resolution. The renewal was rejected in view of the complaint of the residents of the locality that, the working of the factory was causing health problems to them. In the above circumstances, the Pollution Control Board by Ext.P26 dated 27.09.2012, required the petitioner to conduct a trial run for the purpose of assessing the efficacy of the pollution control measures installed in the factory. The petitioner thereupon filed I.A.No.14790 of 2012 in this Writ Petition seeking appropriate directions for the said purpose. Accordingly, as per order dated 17.11.2012, I directed the conduct of a trial run under the close supervision of the Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board. A report of such trial run was also directed to be filed in Court. Accordingly, a trial run was conducted and by report dated 10.04.2013, the Pollution Control Board found on inspection that the unit was able to achieve the stipulated parameters at the trial run. In view 6 **W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N** of the above report, the petitioner submitted a fresh application for renewal of license. However, by Ext.P31 dated 1.7.13, the application of the petitioner was rejected again. Ext.P32 is the resolution of the Panchayat on the basis of which, Ext.P31 has been issued. 5. It is the contention of Sri E.K.Nandakumar, Senior Counsel, who appears for the petitioner that, the factory has not been able to function from 09.12.2011 solely because of the opposition of the local residents and politicians, as well as the Panchayat authorities. Initially, the allegation was that the Pollution Control Board had not granted consent to the petitioner. Though consent was obtained, the unit was not permitted to function alleging that there was pollution. The Pollution Control Board, the competent authority as per law, went into the allegation regarding pollution, assessed the situation and directed the petitioner to undertake remedial measures to control and contain the pollution. Accordingly, investing large sums of money, the petitioner has installed all the necessary pollution control equipments. 7 **W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N** The efficacy of the equipments were tested and assessed by conducting a trial run spread over a period of 3 months from 23.1.13 to 23.03.13, to the satisfaction of the authorities of the Pollution Control Board. The report dated 10.04.2013 filed in this case shows that the Pollution Control Board is fully satisfied with the control measures adopted. The ambient air as well as the water were monitored by the Engineers of the Pollution Control Board. Similarly monitoring of the stack of the factory was also conducted. The parameters were all found to be within the permissible limits. Though water samples were tested, no contamination could be detected. The above being the actual situation, it is contended that there is absolutely no justification for preventing the unit from functioning. 6. The factory had been established investing a large amount of money. All proper safeguards in accordance with the directions of the Pollution Control Board have been incorporated. Since the statutorily competent, expert body, the Pollution Control Board has certified that the measures **W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N** 8 adopted are sufficient to bring down the pollution to the required parameters, it is only appropriate that the factory is allowed to function, it is contended. The petitioner has done everything within its power to safeguard the interests of the public and to protect the health and well being of the residents of the locality. Therefore, there is no justification for the stand of the Panchayat that it was not willing to accept the opinion of the Pollution Control Board and to renew the petitioner's license on the basis thereof. The Panchayat, being constituted of persons who are not technically qualified, is not competent to sit in judgment over the technical conclusions drawn by the Pollution Control Board. Therefore, it is contended that a direction to the Panchayat to grant renewal of license to the petitioner is necessary to be issued in the present case, considering the fact that the factory has been remaining closed for the past many years. 7. Advocate M.Sreekumar, who appears for the Panchayat, disputes the contentions of the learned counsel 9 **W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N** for the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the Panchayat is the representative body of the people of the area. Though license had not been renewed to the petitioner for the past 10 years, the factory was continuing to function and was causing nuisance to the people residing around it, with impunity. The conduct of the petitioner gave rise to a public agitation against the factory protesting at the manner in which it was being worked. The agitation at times even became violent. The Panchayat could not keep quiet in the circumstances and it was for the said reason that, Exts.P8 and P10 had been issued. It was only after the issue of Ext.P10 that the factory stopped functioning. It is also contended that, an Environmental Commission constituted by the Government including even members of the legislative assembly had reported that the working of the factory was the cause of various ailments like dizziness, vomiting, cancer, tumour etc. in the locality apart from contamination of the well water. Taking all the above aspects into consideration, it was unanimously decided by **W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N** 10 the Panchayat not to renew the license of the petitioner. The said decision is fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court, it is contended. The counsel has also made available to me for perusal, the relevant files of the Panchayat. 8. Advocate M.Ajay appears for the 2[nd] respondent - Kerala State Pollution Control Board. The counsel stands by the report dated 10.04.13 submitted in this case by the said respondent. It is submitted that, permission to work the factory could be granted, subject to the restrictions indicated by the 2[nd] respondent in the report dated 10.04.2013. 9. Respondents 4 and 5 are local residents. Advocate B.Krishna Mani appears for them. A separate counter affidavit has been filed opposing the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition. According to the counter affidavit, the factory of the petitioner is a source of acute nuisance and discomfort to the residents of the locality. The same is **W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N** 11 a polluting industry. Its raw material itself is waste oil that is being purified in the factory. When the factory is worked, noxious smell, polluting emission as well as fine particles of dust and carbon are emitted into the atmosphere contaminating and polluting the entire locality. It is contended that instances of the residents' contracting terminal diseases like cancer, tumour, allergies, respiratory disorders which include bronchial asthma, have increased. Consequently, the people living in the locality not only face discomfort and nuisance, but are also under a constant fear of falling sick. The 9 member Environmental Committee that stopped the operations of the factory has found that, many persons were suffering from various diseases. Traces of oil were found in the wells and ponds in the locality. Reliance is placed on Ext.R4(e) to point out that the District Medical Officer had directed a study to be conducted into the complaints of discomfort made by the local people. The Superintendent of the Taluk Hospital has also directed that a similar study should be conducted. Reliance is placed on **W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N** 12 copies of the outpatients' tickets produced along with Ext.R4 counter affidavit filed in W.P(c) No.330 of 2005 to point out that, a lot of people had developed various ailments due to the working of the factory. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned action of the Panchayat in refusing to renew the license of the petitioner could not be found fault with on any ground. Apart from the above, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned action, the proper remedy is to challenge the said proceedings in an appeal invoking the statutory remedy under Section 276 of the Act. 10. In reply to the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents, the learned Senior Counsel Sri E.K.Nandakumar points out that, though reference to many people having fallen sick has been made in Ext.P4(a), when the petitioner sought for the identities of the persons who had actually fallen sick by submitting an application under the Right to Information Act, by Ext.P15 what is informed is that, neither the identities nor the details of the treatment **W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N** 13 given are available. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the allegation that the functioning of the factory had resulted in people falling sick. With respect to the contention regarding the alternative remedy that is available to the petitioner, it is contended that, since there is violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner as well as violation of the principles of Natural Justice as evident from the biased manner in which the petitioner's application was considered, this Writ Petition is maintainable. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench decision of this Court in **Thressiamma v. Union of India** [1999(2) KLT 683]. It is pointed out that the factory has not functioned after the 2[nd] respondent Pollution Control Board had certified the measures adopted by it to be sufficient to contain the pollution. All complaints regarding the factory relate to the period before the pollution control measures were installed. Therefore, it is contended that the said contentions are only to be rejected. **W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N** 14 11. Heard. The activity of the petitioner at his factory is to recycle used oil or waste oil and to convert it into a usable commodity. Normally such waste oil is discarded carelessly and left to contaminate the environment, not only water but also soil. The activity of the petitioner to collect such oil and to refine the same so as to make the same useful is certainly an activity that has to be encouraged. However, refining of oil necessitates the separation of carbon, Carbon monoxide, Carbon dioxide, Sulphur dioxide, Hydrogen sulphide, mercaptans and various other pollutants. Removal and discharge of the said pollutants into the environment would cause pollution. Contamination of water would also be caused if they are discharged into water bodies. However, the emissions can be rendered harmless by proper treatment. It appears that, the petitioner had not initially installed any effective mechanism to control and contain the pollution. The public agitation and complaints have obviously resulted due to the said omission. In spite of the complaints from the public, 15 **W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N** one fails to understand why action was not taken by the Panchayat to cancel the license issued to the petitioner or to refuse renewal of the license. It appears that, no orders were passed on the successive applications for renewal of license submitted by the petitioner and therefore, under the shelter of the provision that entitles the petitioner to the benefit of a deemed license, the factory continued to function. It is true that, in 1994, the application for renewal of the license of the petitioner was rejected for want of consent of the Pollution Control Board. The said action of the Panchayat was the subject matter of W.P(c) No.3294 of 1995. W.P(c) No.7605 of 1995 was filed by the Action Council formed by the residents of the locality for agitating against the pollution that was being caused. W.P(c) No.3294 of 1995 was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment, holding that the petitioner could not be prevented from conducting the factory. Thereafter, from 1997 onwards, the petitioner had functioned the unit on the strength of a deemed license. It was only pursuant to Ext.P8(a) **W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N** 16 resolution and P10 stop memo that the unit was closed on 09.12.2011. 12. An examination of the complaints raised against the factory show that they have all emanated during the period before 09.12.11, on which date the factory was closed down by Ext.P10 stop memo. Respondents 4 and 5 allege that, a number of persons had been taken sick due to the working of the factory. Many had to take treatment for various ailments like dizziness, vomiting, breathing difficulties etc. The documents produced along with Ext.R4 (a) are relied upon by the counsel appearing for the said respondents to contend that the complaints of discomfort were directly traceable to the functioning of the factory. Though the District Medical Officer as well as the Superintendent of the Taluk Hospital had sought for an expert study, and probe into the reasons for the discomfort, no study appears to have been conducted. Ext.P15 shows that, no details of the persons who had fallen sick or the treatment that was given to such persons are available with the authorities. **W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N** 17 Therefore, the documents produced are absolutely insufficient to support the contention that the various ailments complained of by the local residents were traceable to the industrial activity undertaken by the petitioner. There is also no evidence as to whether the persons who had been attended to as outpatients were actually suffering from any ailments as alleged. In the above state of affairs, the contention of respondents 4 and 5 regarding the adverse effects of the factory on the health of the local residents cannot be accepted. 13. The statutory authority that has been created and established to identify, assess and curb pollution is the 2[nd] respondent - Pollution Control Board. The 2[nd] respondent has all the necessary expertise, experienced staff, monitoring equipments and other infrastructure to find out whether a particular factory is polluting or not. The Pollution Control Board is the competent authority that has been entrusted with the duty of controlling pollution. It is for the said reason that, a consent of the said authority is **W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N** 18 mandatorily required for the functioning of any industry. Every industry is subjected to periodic monitoring by the said authority for the purpose of ascertaining whether the conditions stipulated by the said authority were being complied with or not. The power to prescribe standards that are to be maintained with respect to emissions and effluents is also conferred on the said authority, by law. It was for the said reason that, this Court has in Ext.P1 judgment directed the petitioner to obtain consent from the said authority before seeking a renewal of his application for license. It was only after obtaining such consent that the petitioner had been granted renewal of license thereafter. 14. It is not in dispute that, after the petitioner's factory had been directed to be closed down by Ext.P10, the 2[nd] respondent had conducted an inspection of the petitioner's factory. As per Ext.P20, certain additional conditions were also directed to be complied with. Accordingly, the said conditions have been complied with. Thereafter, pursuant to the direction of this Court dated **W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N** 19 16.06.2012, though the 2[nd] respondent considered the petitioner's application for renewal of license again, the same was rejected by Ext.P24. The reason for rejection in Ext.P24 is that, the petitioner's factory was causing health problems to the residents of the locality. The said proceedings are also under challenge in this Writ Petition. 15. Thereafter, by Ext.P26, the 2[nd] respondent wanted a trial run of the petitioner's factory to be conducted. As per order dated 17.11.2012, I granted permission for the trial run to be conducted under the strict supervision of the Environmental Engineer. A report of the trial run was also directed to be furnished to this Court. Accordingly, the report dated 10.04.2013 has been placed on record. It is worth noticing that, the trial run was carried on for a period of three months from 23.01.2013 to 23.03.2013. During the period of trial run, not only inspections and monitoring but also a hearing of the complaints of the public was conducted. An evaluation of the working of the additional pollution control measures was undertaken. The Pollution 20 **W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N** Control Board found that the complaint regarding contamination of the well water in the locality was not substantiated. It was found that, at the rate of production of 20 kl per day, the air and water pollution parameters were within the permissible limits. Therefore, the 2[nd] respondent recommended that the petitioner may be permitted to function the factory limiting its production to 20 kl per day of used oil. Some additional conditions are also stipulated in the report. However, in spite of the report, the application for renewal of license submitted by the petitioner was rejected again. Ext.P31 is the communication and Ext.P32 is the resolution of the Panchayat. 16. A perusal of Ext.P32 shows that, the application of the petitioner has been rejected on the basis of the report submitted by the Environmental Commission in 1995-'96. The reason for rejection is that, even when the trial run was conducted, people had fallen sick. The said reason, as already noticed above, is untenable for the reason that **W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N** 21 there is no evidence to substantiate the complaint that the people had fallen sick. Though the 2[nd] respondent Pollution Control Board has in its report found that there were no traces of oil in the wells and ponds, Ext.P32 has proceeded on the basis that such contamination was in existence. Therefore, both the grounds on which Ext.P32 has been issued are unsupported by any evidence or record. It therefore follows that Ext.P32 is unsustainable. 17. As already noticed above, the Pollution Control Board, the expert body that is technically competent to assess the potential of the petitioner's factory to cause pollution, has conducted a trial run spread over a period of three months, collected data, conducted monitoring and has found that permission to work the factory can be granted subject to the conditions stipulated therein. In the face of the said finding, it was only appropriate that the application of the petitioner for renewal of licence is allowed. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. **W.P(c) No.338 of 2012-N** 22 18. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed as follows:- i) Ext.P32 resolution is quashed; ii) The first respondent is directed to grant license to the petitioner as sought for in Ext.P6 application, subject to the conditions stipulated by the 2[nd] respondent in its report dated 10.04.2013; iii) No costs. Sd/- _**(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)**_ rtr/