IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17639 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUDEVAN, S/O.BALAN, AGED 45 YEARS, SAI BHAVAN, AANAKKOTTOOR MURI, NEDUVATHOOR, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTING:SRI.K.SIVARAJAN, VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, EDAKKIDAM MURI, KAREEPRA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK,KOLLAM DIST.,AS HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 2. SHRI.ANIL KUMAR, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, BUSINESSMAN, SREE VILASOM VEEDU, EZHUKONE MURI, EZHUKONE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY GP SRI.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).17639/2009 ....................... Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the Power of Attorney holder of one Sivarajan, who holds lands situated in Kareepra Grama Panchayat in Kollam District. It seems that a construction was undertaken by the 2nd respondent for establishing a Cashew Factory in a building belonging to Mr.Sivarajan. A kiln is constructed very close to the property of Sivarajan, without maintaining the distance required. This according to the petitioner, is not only in violation of the rules but also would result in pollution which makes it difficult to the neighbouring property owner to reside therein. Accordingly, Ext.P1 complaint was sent before the RDO. This has been returned stating that since the construction of the Factory has been undertaken after obtaining consent from the Pollution Control Board and the Chief Town Planner, RDO may not be in a position to take further action thereon. Ext.P2 has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. The stand taken in Ext.P2 does not seem to be W.P.(C).17639/2009 2 correct. As per Section 133 of the Cr.P.C, RDO can take action when a construction is likely to occasion conflagration or explosion The question as to whether there is any basis for the apprehension expressed by the petitioner, is a matter for enquiry. 2. In the nature of the direction which I propose to issue, I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to the 2nd respondent. 3. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to receive back on file Ext.P1, conduct such enquiry as is necessary through his subordinate Officer and if he finds any basis for the apprehension expressed by the petitioner, he shall issue notice to the 2nd respondent and then proceed further, in accordance with law. It is made clear that Ext.P2 need only be treated as an expression of opinion of the RDO and since I am directing him to take back on file Ext.P1, he shall do so, as already directed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs