IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 5TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 24288 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VINEESH S.R., AGED 36, S/O.RAMANKUTTY, SRAMBIKKAL HOUSE, PROPRIETOR, "SILPA PLASTICS", CHITTANJUR, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV(s) SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE GREEN CHANNEL COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE DISTRICT COLLELCTOR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680001. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTER, THRISSUR, CONVENER GREEN CHANNEL COMMITTEE, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR-680001. 3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR-680001. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY SRI.M.K.C.DAS-SC FOR R3. SMT.M.J.RAJASREE-GOVT.PLEADER FOR R4. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SU WPC.NO.24288/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXIHIBITS: P1: A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 04/08/2009. P2: A COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 08/09/2009. P3: A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE THRID RESPONDENT DATED 03/02/2010 AND IT'S TRANSLATION. P4: A COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 22/05/2010 AND IT'S TRANSLATION. P5: A COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.NO.21157/2009 DATED 14/09/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P6: A COPY OF THE JOINT INSPECTION REPORT DATED NIL. P7: A COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE GREEN CHANNEL COMMITTEE DATED 14/01/2011 AND IT'S TRANSLATION. RESPONDENT'S EXIHIBITS: NIL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SU ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 24288 of 2011 I ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ext.P4 is an order passed by the third respondent, informing the petitioner that, unless the conditions for grant of permission are complied with, the consent applied for will not be granted. By Ext.P7 proceedings, the first respondent confirmed Ext.P4. It is thereupon the writ petition is filed, seeking to quash Ext.P7. 2. In my view, if the petitioner was aggrieved by Ext.P4, remedy of the petitioner was to have pursued appellate remedies before the Air Appellate Authority, the statutory body which is entitled to sit in judgment over orders like Ext.P4. Therefore, the proceedings initiated before the first respondent is a misconceived one. 3. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to think that the petitioner should file appeal before the appellate W.P.(C) No.24288/2011 : 2 : authority and seek his remedies. Therefore, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority within two weeks and if such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority shall entertain the appeal and consider the matter on merits, with notice to the parties concerned and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/27/09 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge