IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 31852 of 2010(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- GOPI.P.K., S/O.KUNJIKITTU, AGED 63, POOZHIKUNNATH HOUSE, P.O.THALIKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THALIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.THALIKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 569. 2. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, GREEN FIELD, THIRUVAMBADI ROAD, POONKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680 002. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VATANAPPILLY POLICE STATION, VATANAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.PIN- 680 569 4. KHADEEJA, PATHIYAPARAMBATHU VEEDU, THALIKULAM P.O., THRISSUR.PIN- 680 569 *ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED * ADDL.R5: MOOSA, PATHIYAPARAMBATHU VEEDU, THALIKULAM P.O., THRISSUR-680 569. * ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14/1/11 IN I.A.NO.743/11 R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC,POLL.C.BOARD R4 & ADDL.R5 BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/01/2011, ALONG WITH WPC.NO.985 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.31852/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01/03/2010. P2 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 22/04/2010. P3 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER R1 ACT DATED 25/5/2010. P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER R1 ACT ALONG WITH THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY HIM TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16/08/2010. P5 COPY OF THE REMINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 DATED 07/06/2010. P6 COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7/06/2010 TO THE PETITIONER. P7 COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9/06/2010 TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)Nos. 31852 OF 2010 & 985 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in the latter writ petition is the proprietor of M/s.Pathiyarambath Saw Mill situated in the property having an extent of 10 cents comprised in survey No.201/8 of Thalikulam village. According to the petitioner he had started the said Saw Mill in the year 1979 as a small scale industry unit and thereafter discontinued with its functioning for want of 'No Objection Certificate' from the Forest Department. It is contended that subsequently, the petitioner has obtained Ext.P4 No Objection Certificated issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Kerala and thereupon, submitted Ext.P5 application for licence before the respondent Panchayath. Ext.P5 is dated 3.4.2010. The said writ petition has been filed on being aggrieved by the inordinate delay in the matter of disposal of Ext.P5 application. 2. The former writ petition has been filed by a neighbouring property holder of the petitioner in the latter WPC.Nos.31852/2010 & 985/2011 : 2 : writ petition. His grievance is with respect to the very functioning of the Saw Mill run by the petitioner in the latter writ petition without obtaining licence from the Panchayath and Pollution Control Board. The petitioners in both these writ petitions are raising allegations against each other. I do not think it necessary to consider those contentions, allegations and attributions at this stage for the simple reason that Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner for licence is pending before the competent authority, viz., Thalikulam Grama Panchayath. When such an application is submitted before a competent authority with all the requisite documents, that authority has the power coupled with duty to dispose of such application in accordance with the provisions of law. As noticed earlier, the contention of the petitioner in the former writ petition is that he is a neighbouring property holder and the mill in question is being run illegally. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both these writ petitions, the learned standing counsel for the common respondent, the Thalikulam Grama Panchayath as also the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. 4. Considering the fact that Ext.P5 application in WP(C) WPC.Nos.31852/2010 & 985/2011 : 3 : No. 985/2011 for grant of licence for running of a Saw Mill is pending before the first respondent, Grama Panchayath, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Secretary of Grama Panchayath, second respondent in the said writ petition, to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 in accordance with law. The second respondent in WP(C) No.31852 of 2010 shall submit a report to the secretary of Thalikulam Grama Panchayat on the issue regarding the pollution aspects to enable that authority o consider Ext.P5 in accordance with law. This shall be done within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Thereupon, the Secretary, Thalikulam Grama Panchayat shall consider Ext.P5 application after affording opportunities of being heard to the petitioners in both the writ petitions, expeditiously at any rate, within one month thereafter. Disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge