IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31733 of 2011(N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- MEPPERI SANTHAKUMARI, WIDOW OF LATE SIVADASAN, AGED 63 YEARS, VALIYAVEETTIL, KADAPPURAM ROAD JUNCTION, POOTHAPARA, AZHIKODE, KANNUR DT. BY ADVS. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.K.R.AVINASH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. P.P.SAJEEVAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, PROPRIETOR, RAJ GROUP WOOD INDUSTRIES, KADAPPURAM ROAD JUNCTION, POOTHAPARA, AZHIKODE, KANNUR-670009. 2. THE AZHIKODE GRAMAPANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, AZHIKODE, KANNUR DT.670009. 3. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DISTRICT OFFICE, GALAXY COMPLEX, KAKKAD ROAD, KANNUR-670009. R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS, SC., P.C.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 31733/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.NO.418/2002 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT (ADDL.MUNSIFF), KANNUR DATED 31.3.2008. P2: COPY OF THE DECREE IN A.S.NO.126/2008 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT (ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE), DATED 30.1.2010. P3: COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 21.8.2010. P5: COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4.9.2010. P6: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20.7.2010. P7: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10.11.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).31733/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The essential grievance of the petitioner is regarding a saw mill that has been established by the first respondent. It is seen that in respect of the saw mill, petitioner has already filed O.S.No.418/2002 before the Additional Munsiff Court, Kannur, and Ext.P1 decree was obtained. It is also seen that the said decree has been modified in A.S.No.126/2008, the decree of which is Ext.P2. In this writ petition what is complained of by the petitioner is that even in the absence of consent obtained from the Pollution Control Board, saw mill continues to function. This contention is raised on the strength of Ext.P5, a reply obtained by the petitioner from the PCB invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act. Apparently on disclosure of the said information, petitioner has filed Ext.P6 complaint before respondents 2 and 3. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are required to take action against the saw mill in question. 2. Having regard to the controversy now pending before respondents 2 and 3, I do not think that this Court is required to go into the merits of the contentions. W.P.(C).31733/11 2 3. Taking note of the pendency of Ext.P6 complaint stated to have been filed before respondents 2 and 3, I direct the aforesaid authorities to take appropriate action on Ext.P6. This shall be done with notice to the petitioner and the first respondent and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs /true copy/ P.A. To Judge