IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27661 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- 1. A.L.CHINNAMMA, W/O C.L.VINCENT, CHAKRAMAKKIL HOUSE, PALUVAI, CHAVAKKAD. 2. C.L. VINCENT, CHAKRAMAKKIL HOUSE, PALUVAI, CHAVAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.BENNY VARGHESE (THETTAYIL) RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THAIKKADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY SECRETARY, P.O. PALUVAI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, PONKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR, REP. BY ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER. 3. DAISY LAZER, W/O LAXER, VALLUCHIRA HOUSE, P.O. ANCHERY, THRISSUR -6. BY SRI.M.K. CHANDRAMOHANDAS - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.27661 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners are running a flour mill and a service station. They are aggrieved by the direction issued by the 1st respondent Panchayat, whereby the licence to run the flour mill and the service station has been cancelled since the petitioners have not obtained consent from the 2nd respondent for running the flour mill and the service station. The petitioners submit that they have already applied for consent, which is pending. The petitioners further submit that they have already complied with all the directions issued by the 2nd respondent in this regard. They also seek a direction to permit the petitioners to continue running of the flour mill and the service station, pending disposal of the application for consent. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board also. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners have not obtained consent from the 2nd respondent for running the flour mill and the service W.P.(c)No.27661/08 2 station. The law prohibits running of the same without consent from the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to continue running of the flour mill and the service station until they obtain consent from the 2nd respondent. Therefore, I do not think that the petitioners can validly seek the prayers in the writ petition. However, the 2nd respondent is bound to pass final orders in the application for consent stated to have been submitted by the petitioners expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application for consent submitted by the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.27661/08 3