IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13912 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- OMANA, D/O.THANKAMMA, PILLAIVEETTIL PADINJATTATHIL, KADAPRA, KADAPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, CHATHENKERY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. THE KADAPRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NIRANAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. THE SECRETARY, KADAPRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NIRANAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 6. MR.M.C.THOMAS, KALEEIKKAPARAMBIL VEEDU, KADAPRA MANNAR, NIRANAM P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER A.J VARGHESE, R1 SRI. M.K. CHANDRA MOHAN DAS, SC, R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 13912 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T The grievance raised in this writ petition is with respect to the unauthorised functioning of a piggery belonging to the 6th respondent. According to the petitioner, the manner in which the 6th respondent runs the same is the source of nuisance and water pollution in the locality. Raising such allegations and contentions the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 representation before the 5th respondent. The petitioner has also preferred similar representations before certain other authorities as well. It is the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities on such representations that constrained the petitioner to file this writ petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to issue notices to the other respondents at this stage. The specific contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P2 representation submitted before WPC.NO.13912/2011 : 2 : the 5th respondent is still pending consideration. When such a representation carrying allegations of nuisance and pollution is filed the 5th respondent is duty bound to consider the same. In the said circumstances, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised in this writ petition, it is disposed of with a direction to the 5th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment with notice to the 6th respondent as also to the 2nd respondent. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge