IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 38464 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. P.H.SALIM, S/O.P.K.HYDER ALI, AGED 44 YEARS,PUTHIYAVEETIL HOUSE, VALAPPAD BEACH PO, THRISSUR 680 567. 2. SANTHOSH.P.S, SREEDHARAN, AGED 38 YEARS,PUTHIYAVEETIL HOUSE, VALAPPAD BEACH PO, THRISSUR 680 567. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (OASIS) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. VALAPPAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH(SPECIAL GRADE),REP.BY ITS SECRETARY PO VALAPPAD, THRISSUR 680 567. 2. THE SECRETARY, VALAPPAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH(SPECIAL GRADE),PO VALAPPAD, THRISSUR 680 567. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR, POONKUNNAM PO, THRISSUR 680 002. 4. JUSTIN RAJ,S/O.SIMSON, JASMINE HOLLOWBRICKS,THERIYAMVILA,PUTHENVEEDU, VALAPPAD BEACH PO, THRISSUR, PIN 680 567. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR FOR R3 SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN FOR R1-2 SRI.ALAN PAPALI FOR R1-2 SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN FOR R1-2 SMT.O.V.BINDU FOR R1-2 SMT.ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY FOR R1-2 SRI.N.N.ARUN BECHU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.38464/10 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 27.3.2010 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 18.12.2010 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 13.12.2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 15.12.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 38464 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 18th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Writ petition has been filed complaining about the functioning of hollow brick unit of the 4th respondent. 2. Today when the matter came up for orders, counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that, on receipt of the complaints, a stop memo was issued by the Panchayat. It is submitted that in compliance with the stop memo, unit has been closed down and the Panchayat will permit revival of the unit only on production of consent issued by the 3rd respondent. The submission made on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 should redress the grievance of the petitioners and therefore recording the submission as above, the writ petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp