IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15111 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. LEJA MARY MATHEW, D/O. PHILIP MATHEW, KALLURUMPIL, THADIYOOR.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. EAPPEN CHERIAN, S/O.V.E. CHERIAN, AGDD 62 YEARS, VANCHIKAPPARA, TGHELLIYOOR.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. EAPPEN LUKE, S/O. I.CV. EAPPEN, AGED 62 YEARS, AYYANKOVIL HOUSE, THELLIYOOR.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. SHIBU VARGHESE, S/O.A.G. VARGHESE, AGED 47 YEARS, KAROTTUKOIKKATL HOUSE, THELLIYOOR.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 5. GEORGE THOMAS, S/O. LUKA GEORGE, AGED 55 YERARS, KOODATHUMURIYIL HOUSE, THELLIYOOR.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BINU K. ABRAHAM, MANAGING PARTNER ST. GREGORIOUS METALS, THELLIYOOR, VENNIKKULAM, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. WPC.15111/09 2 4. THE EZHUMATTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THELLIYOOR.P.O, VENNIKULAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R2, R3 BY ADV.SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.15111 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners challenge Exts.P15 and P16, issued by a Grama Panchayat and the district office of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board respectively, to the first respondent, who is running a metal crushing unit. Ext.P15 is the decision of a Panchayat to renew the permit that is available under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Ext.P16 is a consent to operate the said crushing unit granted by the Environmental Engineer from the Pathanamthitta district office of the KSPCB. If the petitioners have any grievance against that, they have a statutory remedy by way of appeal to the appellate body under the relevant legislation. 2. The petitioners have a case that the first respondent has obtained permits forging the signature of the owner of the land, who is now no more. I do not think that this is a matter on which the court will hear the petitioners since if the legal WPC.15111/09 Page numbers representatives of any person whose signature has been forged have any claim, it is a matter for them to agitate before the appropriate court. 3. The petitioners voiced the grievance that the metal crushing unit is operating in such a manner that it inflicts their rights. Therefore, any statutory authority before whom any appeal would be filed against the impugned Exts.P15 and P16 would consider those matters in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. All such issues are left open and other reliefs are rejected. The writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to what is stated above. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.4/6.