BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

Application No.314 of 2013 (SZ)

(W.P.No.6696 of 2012 on the file of High Court)

In the matter of

1. M.C.Alias Marady Village. District...... Applicant VS 1. State of Kerala rep. by its Secretary Industries Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram

2. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board Rep. by its Environmental Engineer, Gandhi Nagar, Ernakulam

3. Marady Grama Panchayath Rep. by its Secretary, Marady Grama Panchayath Office

4. The President, Marady Grama Panchayath Marady Grama Panchayath Office, Marady PO, Ernakulam District.

5. Mr.Shans Paul Kochukudiyil House, Marady, Ernakulam Dist.

6. Mr.Pelexy K.Varghese, (Proprietor, S.S.Industries) , Ernakulam. .. Respondents

Counsel appearing for the applicant:

Mr.Binish Mathew, Power Agent

Counsel appearing for the Respondents:

Smt. Suvitha A.S. for R1, Smt. Rema Smrithi for R2 Shri M.R.Gokul Krishnan for R3 Shri Mathew Kozhilnadu for R5

O R D E R

Present

Hon’ble Shri Justice Dr.P. Jyothimani, Judicial Member

Hon’ble Prof.Dr.R. Nagendran, Expert Member

------

23rd February, 2016

------

We have heard Mr.Binish Mathew elaborately and the reply by Mrs.Rema Smrithi, learned counsel appearing for Kerala State Pollution Control Board.

2. The applicant who is stated to be living within 96 meter from the place of metal crusher unit which is run by the 5th respondent has originally prayed in the Hon’ble High

Court of Kerala by filing Writ Petition W.P.No.6696 of 2012 with various prayers which includes the complaint on the 5th respondent crushing unit in causing pollution both dust as well as noise.

3. Even though one of the prayers in the Writ Petition was that the 5th respondent was not having a valid license as per Rule 4 of the Panchayath Raj (issue of license to dangerous and offences and trades and factories) Rules 1996 (Kerala), now it is learnt that such license has been obtained by the 5th respondent. In any event, after the Writ

Petition was transferred to this Tribunal, this Tribunal cannot decide about the

Panchayath Raj (issue of license to dangerous and offences and trades and factories)

Rules 1996. (Kerala).

4. We are concerned strictly about the complaint relating to noise as well as dust pollution, as alleged in the application.

5. It is true that the State Pollution Control Board has filed certain reports earlier in which it was stated that the noise level as well as the dust particles are above permissible limits. But as per the direction of this Tribunal, the 2nd respondent Board visited the spot concerned and filed its report dated 20.02.2016. In the said report it is stated that the 5th respondent crusher unit was monitored on 16.02.2016 after intimating the applicant as well as respondent through notice. The 5th respondent unit was running on partial load and that was the main complaint of the applicant. It was replied by the 5th respondent authorities that there is lack of storage facility and therefore the crusher unit is running with partial load. The sound level measured was 63 dB(A) Leq

1m outside the brick walled boundary and 70 dB (A) Leq at 1 m outside the open gate viz., the entrance of the unit. The dust level was 188 microgram/ m 3) (Standard 200 microgram/ m3 ) for suspended particulate matter. It is stated that water sprinklers,

mist sprayers were in operation and were seen to be satisfactorily functioning. The enclosure of the unit was provided with brick wall which was found to be satisfactory.

It is further stated that certain rectification has to be done by 5th respondent as it is mentioned in Para 4 which is stated as follows:

“I may humbly submit that the monitoring shows the dust level around the unit is within the standard. The sound level is exceeding the standard concentrations though it is not exceeding 10 dB (A) from the standard 63 dB (A) Leq whereas the standard applicable is 55 d B(A) Leq near to the boundary wall constructed with brick masonry.

The much exceeding concentration was noticed at the open gate where there is any boundary wall or any obstructions to reduce sound level are not available. Hence, it is humbly prayed that though this unit is installed long back (They have obtained NOC on

23.03.1988), they need to concentrate to reduce sound level generated from the unit and to operate the water sprinklers and mist sprayers continuously.”

In view of the recent stand taken by the Board, we are of the considered view that no further orders are required in this application except directing the 2nd respondent

State Pollution Control Board to continue to monitor the functioning of the 5th respondent Unit and issue various directions.

We also make it clear that in the event of finding the dust particles as well as the noise level beyond the permissible limits by the conduct of the 5th respondent, in future, it is always open to the applicant to approach this Tribunal by filing an application.

With the above direction, the application stands closed. There shall be no order as to cost.

Justice Dr.P. Jyothimani Judicial Member

Prof.Dr.R.Nagendran Expert Member