IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 7948 of 2009(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SMT.P.JANAKI, AGED 85 YEARS, PATHINANCHITHARAYIL (MADATHILPARAMBIL), WARD NO.16, HOUSE NO.136, THEKKE NADA.P.O.,VAIKKOM. BY ADV. MR.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. J.ROBY, S/O.ULLAHANNAN, PERIPPURAM, PALLIPPRATHUSSERI.P.O., VAIKKOM. 2. THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPALITY, VAIKKOM. 3. THE SECRETARY, T.V.PURAM GRAMAPANCHAYATH, VAIKOM. 4. DISTRICT OFFICER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADVS. MR.K.SHRIHARI RAO, SMT.N.SHOBHA, MR.P.M.NATESAN, R2 BY ADV.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM, R3 BY ADV.MR.DILIP MOHAN. R4 BY MR. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.7948/2009-K: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 13/02/2008. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 29/07/08. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 11/08/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.7948 of 2009-K = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The submission made by the learned counsel for the third respondent and recorded by him on 8.7.2009 is stated to be erroneous in as much as the said submission was on a mistake of fact. This is recorded. In fact, the third respondent has really no role in this writ petition. The alleged activity of the first respondent is within the jurisdiction of the second respondent. The learned counsel for the second respondent states that the first respondent has not been granted any renewed permit or licence for the present year. The first respondent, through counsel, states that he is not carrying out the activity alleged. Recording these submissions, it is ordered that the first respondent shall not carry out the activity of hollow brick WP(C)7948/09 -: 2 :- manufacture or any other activity in the premises in question, which may require licence from the Municipality, without such licence being issued by the municipality authorities. It is clarified that this judgment does not provide the issuance of licence, if the first respondent is entitled to. However, it is ordered that the petitioner will be given notice of any such request and an opportunity of being heard in opposition to any such request. All other issues are left open. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/160709