IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18644 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.K. RAVEENDRAN, S/O. KOCHITTAMAN, THAREPARAMBU HOUSE, PROPRIETOR, M/S. GURUJI AUTOMOBILES, P.J. ANTONY ROAD, PADIVATTAM, EDAPALLY.P.O, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.H.HAMZA ROWTHER SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682 020. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682 020. 3. MRS. AISHA SASIDHARAN, W/O. SASIDHARAN, THAREPARAMBU HOUSE, P.J. ANTONY ROAD, PADIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY.P.O, ERNAKULAM. SC SRI. M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18644 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THELICENSE ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN FOR CONDUCTING THE WORKSHOP FOR THE PERIOD 1985-86 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE PAYMENT OF LICENSE FEES TO THE CORPORATION EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE 'NO OBJECTION' STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE NEIGHBOURS OF THE PETITIONER'S WORKSHOP EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE WORKSHOP ALONG WITH BOUNDARY WALL AND PARKING AREA AND ALSO THE HOUSES COMING WITHIN A REDIUS OF 50 METERS PREPARED TBY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH PHOTOGRAPHS EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER FOR REFUSAL OF CONSENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONSENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 EXT.P9- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF ENQUIRY ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P10- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO STOP THE UNIT (True Copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).18644/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 11th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the owner of an automobile workshop. By Ext.P8 application he sought consent to operate from respondents 1 and 2. On receipt of the application, which was made in March, 2011, Ext.P9 notice of enquiry was issued and now the matter is pending before the second respondent. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is issued Ext.P10, calling upon the petitioner to stop functioning the workshop and report compliance. 2. Ext.P10 order has been issued on the premise that the consent to operate the Unit was already refused. However, it is pointed out that earlier, the application made by the petitioner was rejected by Ext.P7 and that after rectifying the defects pointed out therein, a further application evidenced by Ext.P8 was made, which is pending orders. It is stated that therefore, the premise on which Ext.P10 order has been issued is factually erroneous. 3. As at present, Ext.P8 application made by the petitioner is W.P.(C).18644/11 2 pending consideration. Therefore, at this stage I see no reason for the respondents to have issued Ext.P10 leading to closure of the workshop. 4. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that respondents 1 and 2 will consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 application, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 will stand deferred. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs