IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 11466 of 2011(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.G.BHANUMATHI, W/O.LATE K.K.BHASKARAN, KATTOOR HOUSE, "SARVODHAYA", THIRUVAMBADY ROAD, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR – 680 002. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR – 680 001. 2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THRISSUR DISTRICT – 680 001. 3. VASU, PULLATTUVEETTIL (GOKULAM) THIRUVAMBADY ROAD, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR – 680 002. R1 BY SRI. KODOTH SREEDHARAN, S.C, R2 BY SRI. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C). NO.11466 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the alleged atrocious activities being pursued by the third respondent running a hotel contrary to the relevant provisions of law and without any regard to the rights and liberties of the others concerned. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner has already been taken up for consideration before the first respondent Corporation by filing Ext.P1 and P2, simultaneously, bringing the instances of violation in respect of pollution, by preferring Ext.P3 before the second respondent. The grievance is against the callous inaction on the part of the said respondents in finalizing the said proceedings. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 as well. 4. Considering the limited nature of the relief prayed for before this Court and proposed to be given, it is not W.P.(C). NO.11466 OF 2011 2 found necessary to issue any separate notice to the third respondent. 5. The writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P1 and P2 and the second respondent to consider Ext.P3 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the sides including the third respondent. Final orders as aforesaid shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the concerned respondents for taking further steps. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. mns