IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 30TH APRIL 2009 / 10TH VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 11087 of 2009(E) PETITIONER: NABEESA,W/O. MUHAMMEDALI, AGED 48 YEARS, MARINJAMTHURUTHIL, PONJASSERIL P.O., VENGOLA KARA, VENGOLA VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENTS: 1. SUHARA ABOOBACKER, MALEKKUDY HOUSE, POONJASSERY P.O., KUNNATHUNAD TALUK. 2. THE SECRETARY, VENGOLA GRAMAPANCHAYATH, VENGOLA P.O., ERNAKULAM 683 554,. 3. THE CHIEF ENVORONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI -20. 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR. ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) FOR R1 SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM FOR R1 SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY FOR R2 SRI. M.K. CHANDRAMOHANDAS, S.C. FOR P.C.B. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) 11087/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIOENR DATED 20.9.2005 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, VENGOLA VILLAGE, PUTHENCRUZ SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESP0NDENT DATED 25.11.2008. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.3.2009. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.3.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.11087 & 12942 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 30th April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12942 of 2009 intending to start an industrial engaged in the manufacture of hollow bricks applied for necessary licence by approaching the fourth respondent Panchayat under the relevant provisions of law. However, no such licence has been issued for want of clearance from the second respondent, Pollution Control Board, and the third respondent, District Medical Officer, where Exts.P2 application preferred by the petitioner and Ext.P4 reference made by the Panchayat are pending consideration. The main prayer in the said writ petition is to direct respondents 2 and 3 to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P2 and P4 at the earliest. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11087 of 2009 contends that the first respondent therein who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12942 of 2009 is conducting the industrial unit engaged in the manufacturing of hollow bricks in the concerned property W.P.(C) Nos.11087 & 12942 of 2009 2 without obtaining necessary licence and clearance from the authorities concerned which made her to alert the Panchayat who issued a stop memo. The said petition has been filed for directing the Panchayat to ensure that the industrial unit is not run without obtaining necessary licence by the first respondent, the petitioner in the other writ petition. Obviously, when the above matter was admitted on 3.4.2009, an interim order was passed this Court, directing the respondents 2 and 4 in W.P (c) No.11087 of 2009 to ensure that Ext.P3 stop memo is strictly enforced, if the same is in force. 3. Considering the undisputed facts, the position that emerges is that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12942 of 2009 is yet to obtain proper licence from the concerned authorities for running the unit and steps are being pursued by the said petitioner in this regard. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12942 of 2009 submits that the petitioner does not have any idea or intention to run the said unit without obtaining W.P.(C) Nos.11087 & 12942 of 2009 3 proper licence from all the concerned authorities and that the other writ petition (W.P.(C) No.11087 of 2009) has been filed by the petitioner therein only on the basis of a wrong and misconceived idea. It is also submitted that the issuance of the stop memo by the Panchayat was only because of the incorrect facts furnished by the petitioner in the said writ petition. 5. After hearing both the sides, it is found just and proper to have the matter disposed of giving appropriate directions to the concerned authorities to redress the grievance of both the sides. Respondents 2 and 3 in W.P.(C) No.12942 of 2009 are directed to consider Exts.P2 and P4 pending before the said respondents and pass appropriate orders therein, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. On obtaining clearance from the said authorities, the application preferred by the petitioner before the 4th respondent Panchayat for the necessary licence, shall be considered by the fourth respondent for granting the licence, subject to such conditions as found to be fit and proper by the Panchayat. Till such time, the interim W.P.(C) Nos.11087 & 12942 of 2009 4 direction dated 3.4.2009 granted by this Court in W.P.(C) No.11087 of 2009 will continue to govern the field. It is also made clear that before passing orders by the fourth respondent with regard to granting of licence, an opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the petitioner in both the cases. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE nj.