IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 903 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.10357/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.V.JOSE, KUDIYIRIPPIL HOUSE, MATTOOR, KALADY (PRESIDENT, MATTOOR PALLITHAZHAM PADASEKHARA SAMITHI)KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- VIJAYADEVI, AGED 53 YEARS, THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR FOR R THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- Contempt Case(C)No.903 of 2010 -------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JULY, 2010 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition was disposed of by Annexure A1 judgment whereby this Court directed the first respondent to take a decision on Exhibit P4 representation after hearing the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent, if necessary, after conducting a local inspection. It was also ordered that appropriate decision will be taken within a period of one month. The complaint raised by the petitioner relates to the pollution caused by the activities of the 4th respondent. 2. What is furnished to the petitioner after hearing is only Annexure A2, copy of the minutes which according to the petitioner will not be in sufficient compliance of the directions issued by this Court. 3. The respondent has filed an affidavit pointing out that a local inspection was conducted and further hearing was also conducted on 25.5.2010. Copy of the minutes was given to the petitioner also. Inspection was again conducted on 31.5.2010 by two Officers and they were satisfied with the working of the Unit. COC.No.903/10 -2- True copy of the reports have been produced as Exhibits R1(a) and R1(b). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no final orders have been communicated so far by the respondent. 5. It is evident from the averments in the counter affidavit that a local inspection was conducted by the respondent. But they are yet to pass a considered order in the matter. The furnishing of copy of the minutes will not satisfy the demands of the petitioner, since the petitioner if aggrieved by the final order passed he can resort to appropriate remedies. 6. In that view of the matter, the respondent will pass a final order and communicate the same to the petitioner expeditiously in the light of the directions issued in Annexure A1 judgment. Appropriate decision will be taken in the matter after hearing the parties. The same shall be done within a period of three weeks. The Contempt of Court Case is closed as above. dsn T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.