IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2011/31ST JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 23297 of 2010 (J) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- K.S.SADANANDAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.SANKARA PILLA, AAKKATTU KURUVICHALIL HOUSE KAITHAKKADU KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. KUNNATHUNADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUNNATHUNADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PIN-683 565. 2. CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN. 3. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, COCHI-16. 4. A.S.RAMESH, S/O.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, AKKATTU HOUSE KAITHAKKADU KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE. *ADDITIONAL R5 IMPLEADED *5. K.S.RAVINDRAN NAIR, KURUVICHALIL HOUSE, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. *ADDITIONAL R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06/06/2011 IN IA 8215/11 BY SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD BY SRI.AMBIKA VASUDEVAN BY SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.REMESH BY SRI.K.S.RAVINDRAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-06-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RK WP(C).No. 23297 of 2010 (J) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE TITLE DEED EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT EXT.P3(a): COPY OF THE RECEIPT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE LICENCE GRANTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.R5(a): SKETCH OF THE PREMISE OF IMPERIAL EXTRACT IN SY.NO.13/521 EXT.R5(b): FIELD SKETCH IN SY.NO.521 TOGETHER WITH ITS SUB DIVISION EXT.R5(c): THE CLUSTER OF THREE COLOUR PHOTOGRAPHS JUXTAPOSED WITH THE COMPOUND WALL OF THE IMPERIAL ELXTRACT EXT.R5(d): SURVEY SKETCH OF PVIP CANAL PASSING THROUGH THE BRIM OF SY.NO.521 EXT.R5(e): THE ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTION GIVEN ON 17.04.2010 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.R5(f): THE SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD DATED 27.01.2011 EXT.R5(g): THE LETTER OF REFUSAL LFROM INSPECTORATE OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS EXT.R5(h): LETTER NO.A2-2026/10 DATED 03.12.2010, REFUSING INSTALLATION PERMIT BY 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESS TO 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.R5(i): THE CURRENT TAX RECEIPT IN SY.NO.5/521 AND 7/521 OWNED OBY THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXT.R5(j): THE COMPLAINT DATED 10.01.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY KAITHAKKADU PULAYAR SAMAJAM BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.R5(k): IN HOUSE REPORT NO.A2 2023/2010DATED 08.11.2010 REGARDING IMPERIAL EXTRACT OWNED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE RK C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 23297 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The ado in the case on hand is about 'nothing'. It is the presentiment of the petitioner that the authorities viz., the Panchayat would take a decision on the application made by the 4th respondent for starting a distillery unit for distilling oils from the spices without considering his objections raised as per Ext.P3. That is foundation of this writ petition. It is also his apprehension that the 4th respondent would use highly poisonous chemicals for distillation of spices and solvent extractions. In Ext.P3 it is stated that the area in question is a thickly populated area and, therefore, the establishment of distillery unit would pose health hazards. 2. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by respondent 1, 2 and 4. The additional 5th respondent has also filed counter affidavit in this writ petition. I do not think that this Court should consider the rival contentions on merits at this stage. On 10.11.2010 this court passed an interim order WPC.No.23297/2010 : 2 : whereby the Secretary of the Panchayat was directed to take a decision in the matter after considering Ext.P3 representation submitted by the petitioner. The said order reads thus:- “The Secretary shall while taking a decision in the matter consider Ext.P3 representation submitted by the petitioner and shall after a decision is taken in the matter, communicate it to the petitioner and the forth respondent. If the Secretary decides in favour of the fourth respondent, a licence in the prescribed form shall be issued to him.” The additional 5th respondent has produced Ext.R5(h) in this writ petition. Ext.R5(h) dated 10.11.2010 is the order passed by the Secretary of the Panchayat in compliance with the directions in the interim order dated 10.11.2010. As per Ext.R5(h) it was decided not to grant permission to the petitioner to establish the distillery unit. Thus, it is obvious that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 10.11.2010 a decision adverse to the 4th respondent was taken by the Secretary of the Panchayat. In view of the said position, there cannot be any doubt that the 4th respondent cannot establish the distillery unit without successfully challenging the order in Ext.R5(h). In other words as on today, there is no basis for the apprehension that the 4th respondent would start a distillery unit which may pose health WPC.No.23297/2010 : 3 : hazards in the locality in question. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is closed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma ///True copy/// P.A to Judge