IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2010 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 29574 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SAIDA SHARAF S.M.S.COTTAGE, AYLAM PO, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY BUILDING, ATTINGAL PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MUNICIPAL COUNCILO, ATTINGAL REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY, ATTINGAL PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT OFFICER, PETTAH, TRIVANDRUM. *5. USHA, D/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, SHIBU NIVAS, VALIYAKUNNU, ATTINGAL (*ADDL. 5TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.10.2010 IN I.A. NO.15124 OF 2010) ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR FOR R4 SRI.M.R.RAJESH FOR ADDL.R6 SMT.GEETHA JOB FOR ADDL.R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.29574/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER GIVEN BY ANEESA BEEVI ON FAVOUR OF THE SECRETARY ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE CONSENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AUTHORITIES. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE CORRECTION APPLICATION. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE NOTICE IN THIS REGARD ISSUED ON 5.5.08 BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE CONSENT AGREEMENT. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE COMPLIANCE. STATEMENT. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE PERMISSION GIVEN BY THE INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT DT. 27.3.08. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 30.9.08. EXT.P9. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 30.10.09. EXT.P10. COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE DT. 27.5.09. EXT.P11. COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER GIVEN BY PRABHAKARAN NAIR. EXT.P12. COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE OF HER LANDLORD ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 18.1.08. EXT.P13. COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE CUM ORDER DT. 6.9.10. EXT.P14. COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL. EXT.P15. COPY OF THE STAY PETITION. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE A.K.BASHEER, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29574 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, who ventured into starting a small scale industry has apparently landed in a knotty imbroglio. 2. The Municipality, respondent No.1 herein, within the limits of which she intended to start the Oil and Flour Mill, issued Ext.P13 notice directing the petitioner to close down the unit within 24 hours on receipt of the same and report The petitioner shall produce copies of this judgment and the writ petition before the second respondent for compliance since, according to the author of the said notice namely, the Secretary of the Municipality, the petitioner had been conducting the unit in ward No.XVIII of builidng No.913 unauthorisedly and without obtaining consent from the Pollution Control Board. The petitioner has been further informed that she will be allowed to run the unit only after obtaining a proper licence. 3. I do not propose to refer to or deal with the travails of the petitioner in her mis-adventure. Suffice it to say that all plausible obstacles have been put on her path. Petitioner has admittedly preferred Ext.P14 appeal against Ext.P13 notice. The appeal has to WPC No.29574/2010 2 be considered by the Municipal Council as provided under the Kerala Municipality Act. Petitioner has also preferred a petition for stay along with the appeal. The limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar is to direct the Municipal Council to hear and dispose of the appeal expeditiously. 4. However it is contended by additional respondent No.5 at whose instance the Municipality has reportedly issued Ext.P13 notice, that Ext.P14 appeal will not be maintainable under Section 509 of the Kerala Municipality Act . This respondent has also raised various other contentions. I do not propose to refer to or deal with them at this stage. In my view, the contentions which are now sought to be raised by the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 have to be considered by the appellate authority. Needless to say respondent No.5 shall also be afforded an opportunity to be heard in the matter. 5. Learned standing counsel for the Pollution Control Board submits that the requisite consent has already been issued to the petitioner. 6. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the limited prayer made by the petitioner can be granted. I hasten to add that I have not considered WPC No.29574/2010 3 the merit of any of the contentions raised either by the petitioner or the respondents. The new Municipal Council which is expected to assume charge in the first week of November after the elections, shall consider Ext.P14 appeal and Ext.P15 stay petition in accordance with law and take a decision thereon as expeditiously as possible at any rate on or before 30th November, 2010 after hearing the petitioner and the respondents. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. A.K.BASHEER, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.29574/2010 4