IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8308 of 2011(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- T.BHASKARAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN EZHUTHASSAN, THEMPADIYIL HOUSE, CHUNANGAD POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, (PROPRIETOR, SARANYA INDUSTRIES, CHUNANGAD- 679 511). BY ADVS. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI, SRI.R.SREEHARI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. PALAKKAD DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD, (GREEN CHANNEL CLEARANCE BOARD), DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALAKKAD 678 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR (GENERAL MANAGER). 2. AMBALAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, AMBALAPPARA POST, PIN- 679 512, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. SHRI S.SASIDHARAN, S/O.MADHAVAN EZHUTHASSAN, KALLINGAL HOUSE, CHUNANGAD POST, -679 511, OTTAPALAM TALUK. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.8308 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 17th March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the proprietor of Saranya Industries engaged in the manufacture of Gate, Grills and tress work. They have been engaged in the said business on the strength of licence issued by the second respondent. For the renewal of the licence issued for the said purpose the petitioner has submitted an application. However, the same was rejected as per Ext.P1 on the ground that the requisite permit/consent has not been obtained from the Pollution Control Board. Feeling aggrieved by the same, Ext.P4 appeal dated 7.4.2010 was preferred before the first respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the inordinate delay in the matter of disposal of Ext.P4 appeal. 2. Taking into account the fact that the grievance against Ext.P1 was taken up by the petitioner in appeal through Ext.P4 and Ext.P4 is still pending before the first respondent and also in view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents at this stage. Taking note of the fact that Ext.P4 appeal preferred against Ext.P1 is pending before the first respondent, this writ petition is WP(C).No.8308/2011 2 disposed of, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised in this writ petition, with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 appeal expeditiously, at any rate, within one month from today. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // true copy // P.S. to Judge