IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 20612 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MARY, W/O.DEVASSYKUTTI, PULLAN HOUSE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, POTTA CHALAKKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------- 1. CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR. 3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, CHALAKKUDY DIVISION, CHALAKKUDY. 4. JOHNY, S/O.JOSEPH, VELIYAN HOUSE, POTTA CHALAKKUDY. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT: 5. ALPHONSA JOHNY, W/O.JOHNY, VELIYAN HOUSE, POTTA, CHALAKKUDY. (ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.8996/08 DTD.21.7.98. ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R1 SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR FOR R2 SRI.WILSON URMESE FOR ADDL.R5. G.P. SHRI.RENJITH THAMPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 20612/08. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE PETITION. P2. COPY OF THE REPORT BY R2. P3. COPY OF THE PETITION UNDER INFORMATION ACT. P3A. COPY OF THE REPLY TO Ext.P3. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 20612 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be a resident of the neighbourhood where respondents 4 and 5 are running a wood industry. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the said industry is being run in violation of the pollution laws and forest laws. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent Municipality to cancel the licence issued by them to the 5th respondent for running the industry. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submits that subsequently the licence issued by the 1st respondent to the 5th respondent has been cancelled, which was challenged by the 5th respondent by filing W.P(C).No. 25134/2008, which was disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy available to her and that in the meanwhile, for two weeks from the date of the judgment, that order was directed to be kept in abeyance. Pursuant thereto, the 5th respondent is stated to have filed an appeal. In view of the above submission, the learned counsel for w.p.c.20612/08 2 the petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to hear the petitioner also while considering the appeal filed by the 5th respondent. 2. I have heard the parties. 3. In view of the allegations raised in the writ petition, I feel that it is only proper that the 1st respondent hears the petitioner also while disposing of the appeal stated to have been filed by the additional 5th respondent before the 1st respondent. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to hear the petitioner also before passing orders on the appeal stated to have been filed by the 5th respondent. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge