IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY THURSDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2007 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1929 RP.No. 534 of 2001(C) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.12629/2000 .................................... PETITIONER ----------------- BINDU RAJ, S/O. PRABHAKARAN, AGED 28 YRS, VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, PERUMPADANNA, NORTH PARAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. K.C. JOSHY, S/O. LATE CHITAMBARAN, KANIYANTHARA HOUSE, CHERUVYPE, AYYAMPILLY, ERNAKULAM DIST. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, PARAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, NORTH PARAVOOR. 4. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PLAMOODU JUNCTION, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 6. THE DIST. MEDICAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 7. V.K. BABY, P.M.C 3/31, VATTATHARA HOUSE, PERUMPADANNA, NORTH PARAVOOR. R.P. NO. 534/2001 C 8. SUDHI, S/O. UNNIKUTTY, P.M.C 10/304, MATTUMEL HOUSE, PERUMPADANNA, NOTH PARAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.N.M.VARGHESE SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN SRI.K.N.NARAYANA PILLAI SRI.P.VISWANATHAN GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSHKUMAR SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,POLU.C. SRI.S.VIDYASAGAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO. 56189/2001 IN R.P. NO. 534/2001 IN OP NO. 12629/2000. DISMISSED 25/10/2007. SD/- J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE. True copy tga J.B.KOSHY, J. -------------------------------------------------------------------- R.P.No.534 OF 2001 in O.P.No.12629 of 2000 & C.M.P.No.56188 of 2001 in R.P.No.534 OF 2001 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated 25th October, 2007 ORDER The judgment under review was passed dismissing the writ petition as only a show cause notice was challenged. While dismissing the writ petition, the Pollution Control Board was also directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. Now, it is submitted that the matter was disposed of. Therefore, it is for the aggrieved party to challenge that order. There is no question of reviewing the judgment or condoning the delay in filing the review petition. Both delay condonation petition and review petition are dismissed. J.B.KOSHY Judge tks