IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 28371 of 2007(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ E.C.JOSEPH, S/O. CHACKO, NELLIKKATTIL VEEDU, MADAKKATHANAM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSHI N.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MANJALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANJALLOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. M.J.MATHEW, PROPRIETOR, ST.JOSEPH'S SAW MILL, ACHANKAVALA, MADAKKATHANAM, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI. 4. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, BARTON HILL BUNGLOW, KANUKUZHI, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT 5. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER KOTHAMANGALAM Additional respondent No.5 impleaded vide order dated 21-2-08 in I.A.No.1467/08 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH ARAYAKUNNEL SRI.VARGHESE PARAMBIL SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN,SPL.GOVT.PLEADER GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 28371 of 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March , 2008 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was a complainant before the Ombudsman for the Local Self Government Institutions (in Ext.P5 complaint), seeking an order to quash Ext.15 order passed by the Ombudsman. Under Ext.P15, the Ombudsman directed the Pollution Control Board to conduct an inspection and to issue appropriate direction to the second respondent, who is conducting saw mill, so that the second respondent's mill will not generate any pollution to the detriment of the petitioner. 2. The prayers in the writ petition are to quash Exts.P5 and also to direct the Ombudsman to pass fresh orders. 3. Sri.M.K.Chandramohan Das enters appearance for the Pollution Control Board and has filed a statement reporting that inspection has been conducted and certain directions were given to the second respondent and those direction have been WPC No.28371/2007 2 satisfactorily complied with. This being the position, I do not find any justification for granting relief Nos. 1 and 2. The third prayer in the writ petition is that the licence granted to the second respondent be declared to be against the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and Rules. 4. I have heard the submissions of the various counsel appearing in this case. Sri.Joshi N.Thomas, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.K.Chandramohan Das the learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board, Sri.Jose Joseph Arayankunel, the learned counsel for the second respondent, Sri.Peeyus A.Kottam, the learned standing counsel for the first respondent Panchayat and Sri.Ranjith Thampan, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) for the additional fifth respondent. 5. My attention was drawn by Sri. Joshi N.Thomas to the order passed by the Supreme Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Others (1997) 3 Supreme Court Cases 312). The Special Government Pleader submits that the second respondent does not have the permission of the additional fifth respondent to conduct saw mill. WPC No.28371/2007 3 According to the learned counsel for the second respondent the saw mill is situated beyond 25 Kms from the forest boundary. Whatever that be, considering the orders successively passed by the Supreme Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad's case (supra), I am of the view that the Panchayat will have to reconsider the question of granting licence to the second respondent, since it is conceded by the second respondent that at present he does not have no objection certificate from the additional fifth respondent. 6. Under the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition issuing the following directions; i). The second respondent will pursue the application, which he claims to have filed before the Central Empowered Committee constituted pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court in Godavarman Thirumulkpad's case and will produce orders obtained by him from the Central Empowered Committee before the first respondent Panchayat within two months from today. ii). If orders are not produced within the stipulated time, the first respondent Panchayat will issue hearing notice to the WPC No.28371/2007 4 second respondent and the petitioner regarding a proposal to cancel the licence currently issued to the second respondent. The Panchayat will take a decision on the question of canceling the licence issued to the second respondent in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Godavarman Thirumulkpad's case. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk