IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5818 of 2009(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SARJU.C.T, PUTHVALNIKATH, KALAVMKODAM P.O., WARD NO.IX, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. CHERTHALA TALUK SMALL SCALE COIR MATTING PRODUCER'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.A-886, KALAVAMKODAM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS, SC, PCB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.5818 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that, in respect of a Coir Dyeing Unit, the 3rd respondent had made an application to the Ist respondent for consent for discharging treated effluents to Veluthedathu Thodu. According to the petitioner, though a consent was issued, that was withdrawn by Ext.P1, following the complaints that were received by the first respondent itself. It is stated that, again petitioner came to know that steps have been taken afresh for issue of the consent in favour of the 3rd respondent and therefore Ext.P3 complaint was made. It is stated that ignoring Ext.P3 steps are now being taken for issuing consent and it is with that grievance that this writ petition is filed. 2. Even according to the Standing Counsel who had entered appearance on notice, the first respondent had WP(c).No.5818/09 /2/ initially granted consent but however the same was withdrawn. Since the consent already issued was withdrawn, it is only appropriate that the neighbouring residents who have filed the complaint about the grant of fresh consent were also heard and the objections against granting consent are also considered. 3. In view of this, it is directed that the first respondent shall consider and pass orders on Exts.P2 and P3 objections filed by the petitioner and others against the grant of consent to the 3rd respondent, before any final order of consent in favour of the 3rd respondent is passed. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the first respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.5818/09 /2/