IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10366 of 2011(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DR.SHAJU P.K., S/O.LATE DAMODARAN P.K., "SIVARANJINI" HOUSE, AYINAMPADAM, NEMMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 508. BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA.N.S. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. PARTHAN M., S/O.MADHAVAN, ANTHOORTHOTTAM, AYNAMPADAM NEMMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN - 678 508. 2. THE SECRETARY, NEMMARA SPECIAL GRADE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NEMMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.PIN-678 508 3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PALAKKAD.PIN-678 001 R3 BY ADV.SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC OFR KSPCB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.10366 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner raised a grievance against the running of a workshop by the first respondent before the second respondent. In fact, the petitioner has submitted detailed representations before the Panchayat Authorities, and also before authorities like Kerala Pollution Control Board, the District Collector, Deputy Director of Panchayat and District Medical Officer. Exhibits P4 to P6 are the copies of such representations submitted before those authorities. The environmental problems on account of the functioning of the workshop by the first respondent have been highlighted thereunder, it is submitted. None of the authorities have cared to consider the grievances raised by the petitioner. In the meanwhile, according to the petitioner, the first respondent has approached the second respondent for renewal of the licence. It is submitted that the respondents may be directed to take up the representations submitted by the petitioner at the time of consideration of the application of renewal of the licence submitted by the first respondent. Evidently, the petitioner has raised certain grievances regarding the functioning of the workshop by the first respondent. According to him, it causes not only nuisance, but also poses W.P.(C) No. 10366 of 2011 -2- environmental problem. In view of the fact the representation submitted by the petitioner is still pending before the second respondent and the second respondent is the authority competent to consider whether the licence granted to the third respondent should be renewed or not. I am of the considered view that this Court need not consider the contentions raised by the petitioner on merits, at this stage. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider Exhibit P3 representation of the petitioner submitted before that authority, expeditiously, and pass orders thereon. In case, the request of the third respondent, if any, for renewal of the licence was not considered and granted, the same shall be taken up only along with Exhibit P3. Needless to say that while considering Exhibit P3 and also the question regarding the renewal of permit, the petitioner as also the first respondent shall be put on notice, a decision on the matter shall be taken, expeditiously, at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE KRK