IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 18TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28059 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. M.V.PAULOSE, S/O.VARGHESE, MALIEKKAL VEEDU, VALAPPU, MALIPPURAM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 11 PROPRIETOR M/S.JANATHA SAW MILL AND MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.JANATHA WOOD INDUSTRIES, MALIPPURAM P.O, VALAPPU, KOCHI-11. 2. DENNY PAULOSE, S/O.M.V.POULOSE, MALIEKKAL VEEDU, VALAPPU, MALIPPURAM, ERNAKULAM, PROPRIETOR WOOD MASTER, MALIPPURAM P.O, VALAPPU KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM 682 020. 2. V.A.THOMAS, S/O.ANTHAPPAN, VARIATH HOUSE, MALIPPURAM P.O, VALAPPU, KOCHI 11. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS, SC, PCB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 28059 OF 2010 (F) ===================== Dated this the 9th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners submit that they are running wood based industrial units with all licences and permits. According to them, they submitted Ext.P7 application to the 1st respondent for the installation of additional machineries and they also say that based on the permission, machineries were installed. However, apparently on the basis of complaints made by the 2nd respondent, they were issued Ext.P10 notice to stop the furniture polishing work in the units. On receipt of the said notice, they submitted Ext.P11 reply. Subsequently, they were issued Ext.P12, a show cause notice calling upon them to show cause why the consent shall not be renewed. To that show cause notice also, they submitted Ext.P13 reply. The matter stands at that stage. It is while so that, this writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid proceedings. 2. In my view, at this stage, all that is required is that the 1st respondent should decide on the issue raised in Exts.P10 and P12 in the light of the contentions raised by the petitioner in WPC No. 28059/10 :2 : Exts.P11 and P13 replies filed. Since as on date, no final decision has been taken as above, I direct the 1st respondent to consider Exts.P10 and P12 in the light of Exts.P11 and P13 replies. This the 1st respondent shall do with notice to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp