IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2011 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 10337 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VENUGOPALAN.T.C., PUTHIYA VEEDU, P.O.MAVILAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MAVILAYI VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KANNUR. 4. PERALASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.MUNDALOOR,KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EDAKKAD POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. K.JAYARAJAN, SARADA NIVAS,MAVILAYI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SANJEETHA FOR R1,2 & 5 SRI.R.SURENDRAN FOR R4 SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR FOR R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.10337/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIOENR IN OS 64/2010 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 31.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER by the DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE DT 21.10.2010. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 28.11.09 SUBMITTED BY THE STUDENTS BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 14.1.2009 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 4.4.09 ISSUED by the 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 11.5.09 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 21.5.09 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE CONENT ALONG WITH THE NOTE OF THE 3RD RESPODNENT DT 25.10.10. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 12.11.10 SUBMITTED BY THE EPTITIOENR TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT 26.10.2009 OF 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE ADM, KANNUR EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF COMMISSIONER'S REPORT DT 19.2.10. EXTS. OF R5 EXT.R5(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/KNR/COM/1376/2007 DT 6.10.07. EXT.R5(b): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/KNR/COMP/1376/2007 DTD.18.2.2008. WPC NO.10337/11 -2- EXT.R5(c): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/KNR/TC/2090/2009 DT 2.3.2009. EXT.R3(d): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/KNR/ICO/187/2009 DT 28.12.2009. EXTS. OF R6 EXT.R6(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA ISSUED by the DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE DT 6.10.07. EXT.R6(b): TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTIONC ERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KANNUR DIVISIOND //True Copy// 9.3.99. EXT.R6(c): TRUE COPY of THE CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, EXT.R6(d): TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION SISUED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER AND OTHER NEIGHBOURS DT 4.3.99. EXT.R6(e): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY this RESPODNENT FOR GRANT OF LICENSE DT 23.3.99. EXT.R6(f): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE DT 14.12.07ALONG WITH THE CONNECTED DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PANCHAYAT. EXT.R6(g): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLCIATION FOR ISSUE OF LICENSE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23.1.2010. EXT.R6(h): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, PELARASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT DT 4.8.11 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10337 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 20th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition read as under: “(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 5 to take appropriate action to close down the Wood Plaining Unit conducted by the 6th respondent in the Building Bearing No.III/524 (New XV/473) of Peralassery Panchayath, forthwith:” 2. When the matter came up for orders on 5th of April, 2011 after hearing the parties, on finding that the 6th respondent did not have any licence issued by the Panchayat, this Court issued the following direction; “Therefore, it is clear that the wood plaining unit of the 6th respondent is being conducted without any licence. In the light of those facts, there will be an interim order as prayed for. It is made clear that in the event, this order is not complied with in any manner, the 4th respondent will enforce this order, if necessary, with the assistance of the 5th respondent.” 3. Counsel for the 6th respondent submits that in the WPC No.10337/11 :2 : absence of a licence, he does not intend to reopen the unit in question. 4. In that view, this writ petition is disposed of directing that respondents 1 to 5 shall not permit the functioning of the 6th respondent's unit in the absence of any licence issued by the statutory authorities including the Panchayath. Although the 6th respondent has a case that the petitioner is running the unit without a licence, it is for the 6th respondent to agitate his grievance in appropriate proceedings. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp