IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33083 of 2009(E) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.V. JOY, PROPRIETOR, M/S. KALLAS GRANITES, KALLAPARA HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM.P.O, MORAKALA, PALLIKKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 683 565. BY MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), ADVOCATE. MS.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN, ADVOCATE. MR.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH), ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE AIR/WATER APPELLATE AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE AIR WATER APPELLATE AUTHORITY, POOJAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PLAMOOD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS CHARIMAN. 3. THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -20. 4. THE PARAKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PARAKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PARAKADAVU, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. P.K. VIJAYAN, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, PEENIKAL VEEDU, EAST KADUNGALLURE, U.C. COLLEGE.P.O, ALUVA. WP(C).No. 33083/2009 ...2... 6. SARADA, W/O. P.K. VIJAYAN, PEENIKAL VEEDU, EAST KADUNGALLURE, U.C. COLLEGE.P.O, ALUVA. BY MR.K.ABDUL JAWAD, ADVOCATE, FOR R5 & R6. MR.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC FOR PCB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.33083 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner before this Court is the 1st respondent in Exhibit P6 appeal. The said appeal is filed by the respondents 5 and 6 challenging the order granting consent to establish a crusher unit issued by the Pollution Control Board. 2. In the course of hearing of the said appeal, the respondents 5 and 6 submitted an application for issuance of a Commission and the 1st respondent appointed an Advocate as Commissioner for local inspection. Aggrieved by the order appointing the said Commissioner, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Exhibit P15 is produced herein to show that all the objections taken by the petitioner before the said forum have not been considered while appointing a Commissioner. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 5 and 6 it is pointed out that Exhibit P15 is not an order appointing the W.P.(C) No.33083/2009 2 Commissioner and actually it is a warrant issued to the Advocate concerned. Various reasons have been pointed out with regard to the decision of appointment of Commissioner which I am not adverting at this stage since it is upto the 1st respondent to consider the objections, if any, raised by various authorities while passing a final order. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 and 6 that the Commissioner has already conducted a local inspection and has filed a report, which is produced here in this writ petition as Exhibit R5(h). It will be open to the petitioner to submit all his objections to the report of the Commissioner if he is aggrieved by the facts detailed in the report. The 1st respondent will allow opportunities for both the parties to advance their contentions in the matter. This writ petition is hence dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take all available contentions before the 1st respondent itself. No costs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp