IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 RP.No. 152 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.33083/2009 Dated 21/01/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: ---------------------- K.V.JOY, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.KALLAS GRANITES, KALLAPARA HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM P.O., MARAKALA, PALLIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 565. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE AIR/WATER APPELLATE AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE AIR/WATER APPELLATE AUTHORITY, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PLAMOOD, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-20. 4. PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PARAKKADAVU, ANGAMALY-VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. P.K.VIJAYAN, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 53 YEARS, PEENIKKAL VEEDU, EAST KADUNGALLORE, U C COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA. 6. SARADA, W/O.P.K.VIJAYAN, PEENIKKAL VEEDU, EAST KADUNGALLORE, U.C.COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------ R.P.No.152 of 2010 in W.P.(C)No.33083 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010 ORDER This review petition is filed by the writ petitioner seeking to review the finding rendered by this Court in the judgment rendered in writ petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will raise all the contentions before the authority itself before the acceptance of the Commission Report and he will be adducing oral evidence also. 3. I do not find any apparent error in the judgment. Therefore, the review petition is dismissed. If the petitioner requests for opportunities for leading oral evidence the same will be given by the Commission in terms of the objection filed by the petitioner to the Commission Report. 4. The first respondent will consider the application in accordance with law and provide sufficient opportunity to lead evidence, to both parties. The review petition is dismissed with the above observation. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj