IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35197 of 2008(M) ----------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ----------------- 1. JAMES.P.PAUL, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE PAUL, POOVATHINGAL, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., THODUPUZHA. 2. MANUEL MATHEWS, AGED 73 YEARS, KALLARAKKAL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., THODUPUZHA. 3. P.E.ABDUL AHAD, AGED 42 YEARS, PADIPURAKKAL, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., THODUPUZHA. 4. ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.LATE MUTHUMEERA, PERUNILATHU HOUSE, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., THODUPUZHA. 5. SAYED MOHAMED.V.K., AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.LATE KONTHALAM, VADAKKETHIL, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., THODUPUZHA. 6. GEORGE JOHN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.LATE JOHN, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU SMT.N.SUDHA SRI.ANTONY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THODUPUZHA. 2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, IDUKKI REPRESENTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, ANAKOODU JUNCTION, THODUPUZHA. WP(C).No. 35197/2008 ...2... 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. PHILIP THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, JEERAKATHINAL HOUSE, VADASSESERKARA VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC, THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.35197 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners are aggrieved by starting of a Saw Mill by the 4th respondent near the vicinity of their residences which according to the petitioners would cause very severe pollution problems to the inhabitants of the locality. The petitioners, therefore, seek the following reliefs: “a) to issue a Writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1 st respondent to take action on exhibit P1. b) to issue a Writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1 st respondent to grant opportunity of being heard to the petitioners before granting license if any to the 4 th respondent under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act and Rules thereunder. c) to declare that the inaction on the part of the 1 st respondent on Exhibit P1 is highly illegal, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India”. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent – Municipality also. The learned Standing W.P.(c)No.35197/08 2 Counsel submits that an application for licence has been submitted by the 4th respondent with all necessary documents and only because of the complaint received from the petitioners the same has not been processed yet. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that a representative of the petitioners should also be given an opportunity of being heard before processing the application for licence submitted by the 4th respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent – Municipality to hear a representative of the petitioners also at the time of considering the application submitted by the 4th respondent. Needless to say, the 4th respondent shall also be afforded an opportunity of being heard. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.35197/08 3