IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 RP.No. 21 of 2011(E) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.35245/2010 Dated 08/12/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 6TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ V.S. BABY, S/O. SANKARANKUNJU, NAMAKKAT HOUSE, KALAVAMKODAM.P.O, CHERTHALA - 688 586. BY ADV. SRI.V.L.SHENOY SRI.L.JAYAWANTH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. I.V. RATNAPPAN, S/O. AYYAN, VELLAPILLY HOUSE, KALAVAMKODAM.P.O, CERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 586. 2. VAYALAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAYALAR.P.O, CHERTHALA - 688 536, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROAL BOARD, ALAPPUZHA - 688 532. 4. DISTRICT OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA - 688 532. 5. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA - 688 532. 6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 532. 7. ASSISTANT ENGIEER, PATTANAKKAD ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B, ALAPPUZHA - 688 532. BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC FOR KSEB BY SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS, SC FOR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.No.21 of 2011 in W.P.(C) No.35245 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011 O R D E R This review petition is filed by the sixth respondent in the writ petition seeking a review of the interim order passed by this Court on 8.12.2010 in W.P.(C) No.35245 of 2010. By the said order, I had directed the Secretary of the first respondent Grama Panchayat to close down the petitioner's fibre manufacturing unit. The said order happened to passed in view of the admitted fact that the review petitioner does not possess a valid licence issued by the local authority or consent to operate the industrial unit issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. Further, the review petitioner/sixth respondent had also conceded that his industrial unit is not operating with effect from 25.2.2010. It is submitted that the review petitioner is taking steps to remove the accumulated coir pith and in view of the interim order passed by this Court, he is not in a position to remove the coir pith. The interim order passed by me is one directing the Secretary of the local authority to close down the fibre manufacturing unit of the review petition. If the review petitioner needs to remove the coir pith already lying in his premises, his remedy is to move an appropriate application seeking the said relief in the writ petition which is pending and not by filing a review petition. R.P.No.21/2011 in W.P.(C) No.35245 of 2010 2 I, therefore, find no grounds to entertain the review petition. The review petition fails and is dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.