W.P.(C) Nos.15659/2019 & 10309/2019 (Muhammed Kunhu v. Kanjoor Grama Panchayath & Others; Rupesh C.R. v. Kanjoor Grama Panchayath & Others)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 28TH MAGHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.15659 OF 2019(F)** ## **PETITIONER:** **MUHAMMED KUNHU AGED 66 YEARS S/O. MARACKAR, CHIRANJIPARAMBIL HOUSE (PADINJARE PARAMBU), MUDIKKAL POST, ERNAKULAM,PIN-683 547** **BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 KANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH KANJHOOR POST, ERNAKULAM ,PIN-683 575,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY** - **2 THE SECRETARY, KANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANJOOR POST,ERNAKULAM,PIN683 575** - **3 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERAKULAM, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 020** - **4 RUPESH.C.R., S/O. RAJAPPAN, RESIDING AT CHERATHIL VEEDU, PARAPPURAM POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683 593** - **5 C.R.CHANDRAN, S/O. RAVUNNI NAIR, RESIDING AT CHERATHIL VEEDU, PARAPPURAM POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 593** **R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.P.G.JOSE** **R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.VINOD R3 BY ADV. SRI. T.NAVEEN R4-5 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN R4-5 BY ADV. SMT.V.S.RAKHEE R5 BY ADV. SMT.SAYUJYA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).10309/2019(K), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C)No.15659/2019 & 10309/2019 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 28TH MAGHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.10309 OF 2019(K)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 RUPESH.C.R.,AGED 31 YEARS S/O.RAJAPPAN, RESIDING AT CHERATHIL VEEDU, PARAPPURAM POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683593.** - **2 PRASANTH C.CHANDRAN,AGED 42 YEARS S/O.CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT CHERATHIL VEEDU, PARAPPURAM POST, ERNAKULAM- 683593.** - **3 SHAMSUDHEEN P.M.,AGED 60 YEARS S/O.MARACKAR, RESIDING AT CHIRATHIPARAMBIL VEEDU, PARAPPURAM POST, ERNAKULAM- 683593.** - **4 C.R.CHANDRAN,AGED 68 YEARS,RESIDING AT CHERATHIL VEEDU, PARAPPURAM POST, ERNAKULAM- 683593.** **BY ADVS. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN SMT.V.S.RAKHEE SMT.SAYUJYA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 KANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANJOOR POST, ERNAKULAM- 683575.** - **2 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM- 682020.** - **3 MUHAMMED KUNJU,AGED 66 YEARS S/O.MARACKAR, CHIRANJIPARAMBIL HOUSE (PADINJAARE PARAMBU), MUDIKKAL POST, ERNAKULAM- 683547. R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.VINOD** W.P.(C)No.15659/2019 & 10309/2019 3 **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.G.JOSE , R2 BY ADV. SRI. T.NAVEEN R3 BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).15659/2019(F), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C)No.15659/2019 & 10309/2019 4 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.15659 & 10309 of 2019 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 17[th] day of February, 2020 ## **JUDGMENT** As the contesting respondents in W.P.(C)No.15659/2019 are the two among the four petitioners in W.P.(C)No.10309/2019 and as the prayers in these two writ petitions are inter-related and opposed to each other, these two writ petitions are disposed on the basis of common judgment. W.P.(C)No.15659/2019 is taken as a lead case. ## W.P.(C)No.15659/2019 The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is broadly as follows:- _“Petitioner is conducting a hollow bricks unit in the 1[st] respondent Panchayath since in the year 2013 without any complaints from any quarters whatsoever. The consent to establish that unit was issued by the 3[rd] respondent and it is valid till the year 2023 after being extended from time to time. In the year 2019 when the petitioner applied for renewal of Dangerous and Offensive Trades Licence to the 1[st] respondent, Ext.p11 receipt was issue noting that only after enquiry that licence can be issued. Till date no such enquiry_ W.P.(C)No.15659/2019 & 10309/2019 5 _has happened. The 3[rd] respondent issued Ext.P12 instructions to contain minor pollutions said to be caused by the unit of the petitioner. Petitioner immediately complied with those instructions and issued Ext.P13 to the 3[rd] respondent informing the same and requesting for an inspection for certification. In the meantime, the 2[nd] respondent issued Ext.P14 stop memo pointing out that in pursuance to the complaint of respondents 4 and 5, he has conducted an enquiry, and as it was found that the unit of the petitioner was causing pollution, petitioner was directed to close down the premises and directed to cause within 3 days. Ext.P15 objections was filed by the petitioner inter alia pointing out that no such enquriy as stated therein has taken place. Petitioner also pointed out that the issue regarding the alleged pollution caused by the unit of the petitioner is raised by respondents 4 and 5 and others in W.P.(C)No.10309/2019, which is pending consideration of this Court.”_ 2. It is in the light of these averments and contentions, the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) No.15659/2019 with the following prayers: _“a) Call for the records connected with the case;_ _b) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order and quash Ext.P14 stop memo of the 2[nd] respondent._ _c) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 2[nd] respondent to issue Dangerous and Offensive Trades_ W.P.(C)No.15659/2019 & 10309/2019 6 _Licence to the Hollow Bricks Unit of the petitioner in building No.I/112-A of the 1[st] respondent.”_ 3. Heard Sri.B. Premnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. T. Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board appearing for R3, Sri. P.G. Jose, learned counsel appearing for R1 and R2 (Kanjoor Grama Panchayath) and Sri. Biju Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 4. It appears that during the pendency of this writ petition, the 3[rd] respondent Kerala State Pollution Control Board has conducted an inspection in the petitioner's unit as referred to in Ext.P17 and thereafter, a subsequent inspection has also been conducted and based on that, the 3[rd] respondent Envirornmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board has now issued Ext.P18 memo dated 3.2.2020, which reads as follows:- “വ�ഷയ� **-** ത�ങളട� സ�പനമ�യ ഫണ� സ� ഹ��ഹ��ബ�ക� സ� മലമണ�കന പര�സ�ത� മല�ന കരണ� **-** സ�ബന�ച� **.** സചന **- 06/12/2019** ത യത�യ�ൽ ഈ ക�ര)�ലയത�ൽ ന�ന� ന�ത�യ പര�ഹ,�ധന **.** ഹമൽ സചന പക�ര� ത�ങളട� സ�പനത�ൽ പര�ഹ,�ധന ന�തകയണ�യ� **.** പര�ഹ,�ധന� ഹവ�യ�ൽ സ�പനത�ട1 **3 .** സ�പന� വ,ങള� ടകട� മറച�ടണ�യ�രന�ല പവർത�പ�ചടക�ണ� ,ബന�ല അ�നഹപ�ൾ **55dB(A)** ഹരഖടപടത� **.** ഇത� ഹബ�ർഡ� ന�ഷർഷ�ച�ര�കന പര�ധ�കള�ല�ണ� **.** സ�പനത�ൽ ന�ന� അനര ക മല�ന കരണ� ഒഴ�വ�കനത�ന� ഹവണ� **3** വ,ങള� മഴവന�യ� എതയ� ടപടടന� ഹമൽകര വടര ഉയരത�ൽ ടകട�മറയകയ� **,** സ�പനത�ൽ നൽക�യ�ര�കന സ�പ��ഗ ർസ�സ� പവർതനകമമ�കകയ� W.P.(C)No.15659/2019 & 10309/2019 7 ടചഹQണത�ടണനറ�യ�കന **.** ഹമൽ ന�ർഹR,ങ��ഹSൽ ത�ങൾ സT കര�ച ന�പ��കൾ **15** ദ�വസത�നള�ൽ സമയബന�തമ�യ� ടചയ ത ർത� ഈ ക�ര)�ലയത�ൽ അറ�യ�ഹXണത�ണ� **.** ഹബ�ർഡ�ൽ അല�തപക� ന�ക�പമ�യ�ര�കന അധ�ക�രങളപഹയ�ഗ�ച� ത�ർന�പ��കൾ സT കര�കനത�ണ� **. .”** It is seen from a reading of Ext.P18 that the 3[rd] respondent has now pointed out certain defects in Ext.P18 to be cleared by the petitioner within a period of 15 days therefrom. It appears that Ext.P18 memo dated 3.2.2020 was received by the petitioner on 8.2.2020. Therefore, the period of 15 days therefrom will be expiring by 23.2.2020. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner has rectified almost all the defects pointed out in Ext.P18 and any further subsequent defects will also be cleared by the petitioner within about 5 days time. 6. Sri. Biju Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents and Sri. P.G. Jose, learned counsel appearing for respondent Panchayat have raised certain objections regarding the functioning of the unit of the petitioner. The petitioner may ensure that the defects pointed out in Ext.P18 or any other defects that may have been pointed out in the pleadings of the other parties, may be appropriately cleared by him and a comprehensive compliance report may be filed by the petitioner before the 3[rd] respondent Environmental Engineer, Kerala State W.P.(C)No.15659/2019 & 10309/2019 8 Pollution Control Board, Ernakulam, without much delay, preferably within a period of one week from today. In that regard, the parties may not even wait for the formal issuance of the certified copy of this judgment and may proceed with the matter with all expedition. The respondent Panchayat may also given their written objections, if any, to the 3[rd] respondent and may also suggest any experts to be included in the inspection team of the 3[rd] respondent for inspecting the unit of the petitioner. This may be done by the respondent Panchayath within a week's time. The 3[rd] respondent then may ascertain whether it is necessary to include any of the experts proposed by the respondent Panchayath and also whether the persons so nominated by the respondent Panchayath have the expertise and qualifications to deal with the problem at hand. It is for the 3[rd] respondent to take a call on that and it may be ensured by the 3[rd] respondent that the inspection is conducted by a team consisting of experts with requisite qualifications to ascertain whether the defects pointed out have been duly rectified by the petitioner . The 3[rd] respondent, thereafter, with notice to the petitioner, contesting respondents as well as the respondent Panchayath, will conduct the inspection of the petitioner's unit, without any delay, preferably within a period of one week to ten days from the date on which the petitioner submits the compliance report/rectification report as aforestated. Thereafter, it is for the 3[rd] 9 W.P.(C)No.15659/2019 & 10309/2019 respondent to ensure that such inspection is conducted and it may be ascertained whether the defects pointed out by the Panchayath are really subsisting and germane for the purpose of granting the permit for running of the petitioner's unit. After such inspection, the inspection team will give the report to the 3[rd] respondent and thereafter, the 3[rd] respondent will give a copy of the said report to the petitioner as well as to the respondent Kanjoor Grama Panchayath. The 3[rd] respondent will, thereafter, consider the various aspects in the inspection report and, after granting opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as to the respondent Kanjoor Grama Panchayath, may take a decision as to whether the consent given to the petitioner could validly continue or whether it should be revoked. Until the 3[rd] respondent takes a decision in the matter as aforestated, the petitioner may be provisionally permitted to operate the unit, so that the pollution levels, if any, could also be probably assessed by the 3[rd] respondent during the time of the inspection. In case the decision taken by the 3[rd] respondent is in favour of the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to submit the requisite application before the respondent Kanjoor Grama Panchayath for formal issuance of the trade licence to the petitioner's unit, which shall be considered and decided by the respondent Kanjoor Grama Panchayath in the light of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case in _**Tomy**_ W.P.(C)No.15659/2019 & 10309/2019 10 _**Thomas**_ v. _**State of Kerala**_ [2019(3) KLT 987 (FB), paragraphs, 15, 16 and ## 24 thereof, read as follows:- “15. _In short, the decision in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat (supra), in our view, had only fortified the dictum that, for a refusal of the permission/licence the panchayat should be convinced that the unit in question is objectionable by reason of the density of population in the neighbourhood and possibility of causing nuisance or pollution and that such decision could be formed only on the basis of report of the Secretary which should contain the opinion of experts also. The premise on which the permission can be refused is reiterated in the provisions of Sub-rule (3)(b) of Rule 12, which say that if the panchayat is of the opinion that such construction is objectionable by reason of the high density of population in the neighbourhood or that it is likely to cause nuisance, it can refuse the permission. Therefore, it is evident that the decision in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat (supra) has not in any manner negatived the power vested on the Grama Panchayat to refuse the licence on the basis of the reason that it is objectionable due to the high density of population in the neighbourhood and that it is likely to cause pollution or nuisance. What was clarified is only that, such decision ought to have the support of proper materials collected by the Secretary in his report, which should have the basis of expert opinion also. Therefore it cannot be said that the decision in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat (supra) had fully taken away the principle of primacy of powers of the panchayat, with respect to taking a decision either to grant or to refuse the licence. Nor it cannot be found that, the dictum contained in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat (supra) will in any manner be held as a proposition that the panchayat is bound to grant permission/licence, whenever the expert authorities have issued clearance, subject to any conditions incorporated in their consents/permissions/ noobjection certificates._ _16. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we are e of the opinion that the reference need to be answered only to the extent of clarifying that the power vested on the Grama Panchayat to grant or refuse an application for installation of a factory, workplace or machinery is not absolutely or fully dependent upon the clearances/ permissions/no objections/ licences issued by other authorities or experts. But the panchayats will be well within its powers to refuse the permission if it is convinced that the establishment of such factory, workshop or work place or machinery is objectionable by reason of the density of population in the neighbourhood and on possibility of causing nuisance or_ W.P.(C)No.15659/2019 & 10309/2019 11 _pollution. But the exercise of such power should have a definite basis and support of the materials collected by the panchayat through report of the Secretary which should be based on the opinion of experts or export bodies and which should not have been contrary to any of the expert opinion already procured by the panchayat on the basis of the mandatory requirement contained in the Act and in the Licensing Rules._ _24 .As mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, the amendments specified above were introduced through the Kerala Investment Promotion and Facilitation(No.2) (Act 14/2018). The object of introducing such an Act, as specified therein, is intended to give effect to certain proposals of the Government of Kerala to avoid delay in granting various licences/permissions, approvals and clearances required under-various enactments. Therefore the intention of the legislature to bring such drastic amendment is clear and explicit. Hence it is to be observed that, from the date of enforcement of the amendments from 20th October, 2017, it cannot be said that Village Panchayats have got primacy of power to take an independent decision to reject the applications for permission/licence under provisions of the Act and the Licensing Rules, for construction or for establishment of any factory workshop or work place. On the other hand, the Grama Panchayats (Village Panchayats) are obliged to grant permissions in cases where the authorities mentioned under S.233 of the Act had issued such permissions or consents or no-objection certificates. Even if the panchayat is of the opinion that the construction or establishment of the factory, workshop or workplace is objectionable by reason of high density of population in the neighbourhood and is likely to cause nuisance, then also the panchayat can only obtain expert opinion from the department concerned and it is obliged to issue permission for such construction or establishment subject to such conditions as may be required for abatement of the nuisance, if any, as may be recommended in the expert opinion of the concerned department._ During the above said interregnum period, the contesting respondents and the respondent Grama Panchayath have any objection that the petitioner has misused the permission in the functioning of the unit for the above said temporary purpose, then they may give any such complaint in writing to the 3[rd] respondent, who may make any summary W.P.(C)No.15659/2019 & 10309/2019 12 inspection and based on that, make any interlocutory directions to the petitioner to ensure that any such complaints are alleviated to the maximum extent possible. In case, any of the parties concerned are aggrieved by the decision that is to be rendered by the 3[rd] respondent as aforestated, it is for them, thereafter, to work out their remedies in the manner known to law. With these observations and directions, W.P.(C)No.15659/2019 will stand disposed of. ## W.P.(C)No.10309/2019 The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is broadly as follows:- _“The third respondent has converted his small scale business into a big Industrial Unit in the thickly populated area where the petitioners are residing. He installed big machineries for production of concrete bricks, which fact has been rightly pointed out by Ext.P4 inspection report of the Health Inspector. He further stated that the operation causes high sound pollution and air pollution. I is very much admitted by the Panchayath that the unit is functioning without any valid licence as provided under the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994. Petitioners approached the respondents requesting issuance of stop memo but no positive response has forthcome from the side of the authorities and the unit is still working_ W.P.(C)No.15659/2019 & 10309/2019 13 _without any hindrances. Unless a positive direction is passed by this Court, the petitioners and their family will be put to great injury._ ” 2. It is in the light of these factual averments and contentions, the petitioners have filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:- _“(i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1[st] respondent to issue stop memo to the industrial unit in the name and style 'Friends Hollow Bricks' operated by the 3[rd] respondent or his men;_ _(ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2[nd] respondent to consider on merits Ext.P1 and P7 representations pending before the respondents 1& 2 respectively and pass orders on the same after affording to the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard;”_ 3. Heard Sri.Biju Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. T.Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board appearing for R2, Sri. P.G. Jose, learned counsel appearing for R1 Kanjoor Grama Panchayath and Sri. Premnath, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.3. 3. As mentioned earlier, 1[st] and 4[th] petitioners herein are the contesting respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.(C)No.15659/2019. The other respondents in this writ petition are also the parties in the connected Writ Petition (Civil)No.15659/2019, which has already been disposed by this Court as per the separate judgment today (17.02.2020) as directed hereinabove. W.P.(C)No.15659/2019 & 10309/2019 14 4. After hearing both sides, it is ordered that the orders and directions issued by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C0No.15659/2019 will regulate this case as well. In case any of the parties have any legally justiceable grievances in relation to the decision that may be taken by the respondent Kerala State Pollution Control Board, the said party will be at liberty to work out their remedies in the manner known to law. With these observations and directions, W.P.(C)No.10309/2019 will also stand disposed of. _Sd/_ **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.** acd W.P.(C)No.15659/2019 & 10309/2019 15 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15659/2019** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH**| |---|---| ||**THE HOLLOW BRICKS UNIT ISSUED BY THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT KERALA STATE POLLUTION**| ||**CONTROL BOARD, DATED 5.3.2012, AND VALID**| ||**UP TO 4.3.2015**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF RENEWAL OF THE**| ||**CONSENT TO ESTABLISH HOLLOW BRICKS UNIT**| ||**ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT KERALA**| ||**STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TILL**| ||**30.06.2015,DATED 10.10.2012**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE "INTEGRATED CONSENT TO**| ||**OPERATE -RENEWAL" ISSUED BY THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT KERALA STATE POLLUTION**| ||**CONTROL BOARD TILL 30.6.2018,DATED**| ||**6/10/2015**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE "INTEGRATED CONSENT TO**| ||**OPERATE -RENEWAL" ISSUED BY THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT KERALA STATE POLLUTION**| ||**CONTROL BOARD TILL 30.6.2018,DATED**| ||**12.9.2018**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DANGEROUS & OFFENSIVE**| ||**TRADE LICENCE ISSUED TO "FRIENDS HOLLOW**| ||**BRICKS" BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED**| ||**2.4.29013, VALID TILL 31.3.2014**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER ISSUED**| ||**BY FAISAL PLAMUTHUKUDY VEEDU AND 4**| ||**OTHERS TO THE PETITIONER, DATED NIL**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DANGEROUS & OFFENSIVE**| ||**TRADE LICENCE ISSUED TO "FRIENDS HOLLOW**| ||**BRICKS" BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED**| ||**3.3.2014,VALID TILL 31.3.2015**| W.P.(C)No.15659/2019 & 10309/2019 16 **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DANGEROUS & OFFENSIVE TRADE LICENCE ISSUED TO "FRIENDS HOLLOW BRICKS" BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 5.12.2015,VALID TILL 31.3.2016 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE DANGEROUS & OFFENSIVE TRADE LICENCE ISSUED TO "FRIENDS HOLLOW BRICKS" BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 27.9.2017, VALID TILL 31.3.2018** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPIES OF THE CASH RECEIPT NO.A2668237 AND THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO.A9739702 FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.3429533 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON RECEIVING THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF LICENCE , DATED 16.3.2019** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.PCB/EKM/DO-1/OA-720/15 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 9.5.2019 EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT, SENT BY REGISTERED POST WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT DUE, DATED 1.6.2019 AND THE POSTAL RECEIPT FOR REGISTERED POST DATED 3.6.2019 EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A63954/19 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT , DATED 20.5.2019 EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS OF THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P15 STOP MEMO OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT,DATED 3.6.2019 AND THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 3.6.2019** W.P.(C)No.15659/2019 & 10309/2019 17 **EXHIBIT P16** **TRUE COPY OF THE NON-POLLUTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, KANJOOR, DATED 16.3.2019** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICEI, ERNAKULAM HAVING NO.PCB/EKM/DO1/OA/720/15, DATED 27.9.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICEI, ERNAKULAM HAVING NO.PCB/EKM/DO1/OA/720/15, DATED 03.02.2020.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R4 A** TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 23/1/2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. **EXHIBIT P4 B** TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 11/3/2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR, ALUVA. **EXHIBIT 4 C** TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 11/3/2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. **EXHIBIT R4 D** TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT. 11/2/2019 OF THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, PUBLIC HEALTH CENTER, KANJOOR. **EXHIBIT P4 E** TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 10/1/2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. **EXHIBIT P4 F** TRUE COPY OF STOP MEMO DT. 20/5/2019 W.P.(C)No.15659/2019 & 10309/2019 18 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10309/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.01.2019. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE TAHASILDAR DATED 11.03.2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT PREFERRED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 11.03.2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE HEALTH INSPECTOR DATED 11.02.2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.01.2019. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.01.2019.**