IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 31569 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANOJ P.PANICKER, MULLAPPALLY HOUSE, THOTTOKOM P.O., VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. THALAYAZHAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THALAYAZHAM, VAIKOM. 3. THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRSENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PLAMOODU, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOTTAYAM. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.K.G.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R2 SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, ADDL.CGSC FOR R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.31569 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7, a communication issued by the 4th respondent informing that the application made by him for storage and sale of plastic materials cannot be allowed for the reason that plastic materials having thickness of less than 30 microns are all banned in the State. 2. The pleadings in the writ petition show that the petitioner is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of Bio Oxially Oriented Poly Propylene film. According to the petitioner, in order to continue the aforesaid business he made an application to the Panchayat and the Panchayat granted Ext.P4 licence with a condition that the business can only be in plastic materials having thickness of more than 50 microns. Petitioner states that since the WP(c).No.31569/08 2 specification of thickness ordered by the Government of India and the Government of Kerala are only in relation to the plastic carry bags and that as the petitioner is not dealing with plastic carry bags, but only films referred above, he made an application to the Panchayat seeking modification of the aforesaid condition in Ext.P4. It is stated that, upon on the directions of the Panchayat, he sought a clarification in this regard from the first respondent as per Ext.P6 representation. It is stated that the first respondent forwarded the request so made to the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent issued Ext.P7. It is thereupon that the petitioner filed Ext.P8 petition before the Ist respondent. Since order was not passed on Ext.P8, challenging Ext.P7 that this writ petition is filed. 3. Exts.P1 to P3 are the notifications issued by the Government of India and the Government of Kerala. These notifications show that the specifications regarding the thickness, is only regarding the plastic carry bags and it does WP(c).No.31569/08 3 not prescribe any thickness in so far as the films sold by the petitioner is concerned. If that be so, prima facie it would appear that the view taken in Ext.P7 is incorrect. Therefore, in my view, the matter needs to be reconsidered. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to take up, consider and pass orders on Exts.P6 ad P8, untrammeled by the findings in Ext.P7 order. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/