IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 21489 of 2008(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M.J. MATHEW, S/O. LATE JOSEPH, AGED 50, ST. JOSEPH SAW MILL, ACHANKAVALA, MADAKKATHANAM, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. MANJALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MANJALLOOR. P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI. 3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM. 4. E.C. JOSEPH, S/O. CHACKO, NELLIKKATHIL VEEDU, MADAKKATHANAM, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. CENTRAL ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, ROOM NO.106, PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, C.S.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 3, REP. BY MEMBER SECRETARY BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 21489 OF 2008 G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is challenging Ext. P7 stop memo issued by the respondent Panchayat on 26.6.2008 and alleged to have been served on the petitioner on 8.7.2008. As a result of Ext. P7, it is complained that the saw mill run by the petitioner is facing closure. 2. In my view, Ext. P7 cannot be interfered with for the reason that in Ext. P4 judgment, while disposing of W.P.(C) No. 28371/07, it was directed that the petitioner should pursue his application which he had filed before the 5th respondent and to produce orders thereon before the Panchayat within two months from the date of the judgment. Though the petitioner sought enlargement of the time fixed, that was also rejected by Ext. P5. Admittedly, the petitioner has not so far obtained orders from the 5th respondent. If that be so, in view of his failure to comply with the aforesaid direction of this Court, the 5th respondent is entitled to take W.P.(C) No. 21489 OF 2008 -2- necessary action. If that be so, Ext. P7 stop memo cannot be interfered with. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that his application dated 15.2.2008, filed before the 5th respondent is still pending and that orders have not been passed. According to him, on receipt of the aforesaid application inspection has also been conducted and the final orders are to be passed. If as stated by the petitioner, his application for no objection certificate from the 5th respondent is pending consideration, the 5th respondent shall pass orders in this matter, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 4. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 5th respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-