IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29472 of 2011(H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. MAGLIN STEPHEN, AGED 45, W/O.STEPHEN, HOUSE NO.XI/291, SOUTH THAMARAPARAMBU, KOCHI - 1. 2. M.D.FRANCIS, AGED 52, S/O.DEVASSY, HOUSE NO.XI/244, SOUTH THAMARAPARAMBU, KOCHI - 1. BY ADV. SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682016. 2. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM - 682011. 3. THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ZONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI - 682011. 4. VINCENT CANSIS, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.MARSILIN, HOUSE NO.XI/291, SOUTH THAMARAPARAMBU, KOCHI - 682 011. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.C.DAS, SC., P.C.B. R2 & 3 BY ADVS. SRI.N.RAVINDREN ACHARY,SC,COCHIN CORPN. SRI.P.K.SOYUZ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 29472/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19/10/2009 TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. P2: COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 23/10/2009 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. P3: COPY OF THE LETTER COMPLAINT DATED 06/08/2011 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29472 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Complaining of a saw mill established by the 4th respondent, petitioners made a representation to the District Collector who by Ext.P2 forwarded the same to the first respondent. According to the petitioner the first respondent has not taken any action so far and it is with this grievance the writ petition is filed. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioners, the Standing Counsel for the first respondent and Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3. I am inclined to think that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the first respondent to take action on the complaint made by the petitioner. This the first respondent shall do with notice to the 4th respondent and in accordance with law. 3. It is made clear that this court is only directing consideration of the representation and has not expressed W.P.(C) No. 29472 OF 2011 :2 : anything on the merits of the case. It is entirely for the first respondent to deal with the matter and take a final decision in accordance with law. This shall be done by the first respondent at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-