IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2007 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1928 WP(C).No. 1073 of 2007(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- V.THANKAPPAN VAIDYAR, KALLUVILA VEEDU, PLACHERY P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM (DIST). BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SMT.JANCY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY, PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR, GOVT. PLEADER. R2 BY ADV. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, PCB. R3 BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI,SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 1073 OF 2007 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2007 JUDGMENT It is seen that the petitioner is having serious grievances regarding the dumping of solid waste within the area of Punalur Municipality. But Ext.P2 representation is submitted by the petitioner not before the Municipality but before the Government arraying the Municipality as a respondent. Mr.Krishnamoni, Standing Counsel for the Municipality assures me that if the Municipality receives a representation from the petitioner, the needful shall be done after conducting necessary inspections. Under these circumstances without going into the merits of the grounds raised, I dispose of the Writ Petition directing the petitioner to submit a representation voicing all his grievances before the 3rd respondent-Municipality. If the 3rd respondent receives such a representation within two weeks from today the Municipality will consider the same, conduct necessary inspections, hear the petitioner and take a correct decision under intimation to the petitioner. Petitioner is given liberty to approach this Court again if he is aggrieved by the decision taken by the 3rd respondent. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE btt WPC 2