IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 14099 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KOCHUNNI, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.MAKKAR, KAROTHUKUDY HOUSE, MARAMPALLY VILLAGE, ALLAPRA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR - 683553. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES SMT.K.V.RAMYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD - 682030. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH), ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682030. 5. VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VENGOLA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM PIN - 683 554. 6. K.K.UMMER, KAROTHUKUZHY HOUSE, KANDATHARA, PROPRIETOR, AISHA SAW MILL, KANDATHARA, ALLPRA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR - 683 553. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR FOR R-4 SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE FOR R6 SRI.K.M.SHAMSUDIN FOR R6 SRI. MOHAMMED SHAFI M., GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14099 of 2011(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUECOPY OF THE NOC DATED 6.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.25.4.2011 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.2.5.2011 EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONDT. 10.5.2011 EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTTION DT.12.5.2010 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 14099 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed alleging failure on the part of the respondent authorities including the 3rd respondent in taking appropriate action on the representation filed by the petitioner viz., Exts.P2 to P5 with respect to the functioning of an existing saw mill belonging to the 6th respondent. The petitioner has yet another grievance that the 6th respondent is also attempting to enhance the capacity of the existing unit and also for expanding the same. Ext.P1 would show that No Objection Certificate was issued by the 3rd respondent for installation of a 25 Horse Power Motor for running Veneer and Packing case unit to the 6th respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that none of the conditions in Ext.P1 has been complied with by the 6th respondent and even without complying with such conditions he is attempting to change the very nature of the unit. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 objection before the 3rd respondent. WPC.No.14099/2011 : 2 : 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent and also the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent. 3. As per Ext.P5 the petitioner has raised grievances with respect to the manner in which the 6th respondent is running the unit, before the 3rd respondent. According to him, on account of the failure on the part of the 6th respondent in complying with the conditions contained in the 'No Objection Certificate' the petitioner and the other neighbouring property owners are put to suffer nuisance and pollution beyond all tolerant limits. Despite the receipt of Ext.P5 objection the 3rd respondent is not conducting any enquiry in to and pass appropriate orders thereon to redress their grievances. The petitioner has also submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 4th respondent. The said representation is also pending consideration before that respondent. In the said circumstances, I do not think it necessary to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner on merits at this stage. Taking into consideration the fact that Exts.P4 representation and P5 petition are pending respectively before the 4th WPC.No.14099/2011 : 3 : respondent and the 3rd respondent, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition as hereunder:- The 3rd respondent shall consider Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioner after conducting an inspection into the premises wherein the 6th respondent is conducting Aisha Saw Mill comprised in survey No.2/22 of the Vengola village and then pass appropriate orders with notice to the petitioner as also to the 6th respondent. Since the petitioner has also approached the 4th respondent through Ext.P4, there will be a further direction to the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P4 and take appropriate action with notice to the petitioner and also to the 6th respondent. The said authorities shall pass appropriate orders in terms of the directions in this judgment, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation with respect to the merits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge