IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10289 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RADHAKRISHNAN.K. AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. LATE AROMAN NAIR, KURUNTHALA HOUSE, KARAYAPARAMBU.P.O., CALICUT-10. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH SRI.BIJU JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE TIRUR MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TIRUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, TIRUR MUNICIPALITY, TIRUR. 3. M.K.ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O. ENTHU HAJI, 17/47, M.K.HOUSE, POLICE LANE, P.O.THEKKUMURI, TIRUR-676105. 4. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA ROAD, MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED FOR R1-2 SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN,SC,POLLUTION CONT FOR R4 SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS, SC, PCB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10289 OF 2010 (I) ===================== Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T I heard the counsel for the petitioner, the standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 2. Petitioner is running a workshop, which is stated to be on the strength of Ext.P1 consent order issued by the 4th respondent Pollution Control Board. The Municipality issued Ext.P2 stop memo to the petitioner as early as on 31/10/2009. This notice required the petitioner to stop operations in his workshop within three days. According to the petitioner, on receipt of Ext.P2, he filed Ext.P3 reply. 3. In the meantime, complaining that Ext.P2 is not implemented, the 3rd respondent approached this Court and filed WP(C) No.32207/09. In that writ petition, after hearing all parties, an order was passed by this Court on 15/1/2010 requiring the Municipality to ensure that Ext.P2 is implemented. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for renewal of WPC No. 10289/10 :2 : licence and the Municipality also issued Ext.P5 show cause notice for cancellation of the licence. While proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 was being contested, the 3rd respondent approached this Court again by filing COC No.327/10, complaining that Municipality has not complied with the interim order dated 15/1/2010 referred to above. Obviously, alerted, by filing of the contempt petition, Municipality issued Ext.P7 notice calling the petitioner for a hearing. He filed Ext.P8 reply and the Municipality issued Ext.P9 order requiring the petitioner to close down his workshop. 5. It is on receipt of Ext.P9, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the said order and to declare that the petitioner has complied with the directions issued by the Pollution Control Board. 6. Municipality has no case that the said stop memo has been recalled by it. There is also no averment in the writ petition that the petitioner has closed down his workshop in compliance with Ext.P2. Therefore, there is non compliance of Ext.P2 and that is despite the order dated 15/1/2010 passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by the 3rd respondent. Once stop memo has WPC No. 10289/10 :3 : been issued, it is also the responsibility of the Municipality to ensure compliance thereof, and in this case, prima facie, there is failure on the part of the Municipality in ensuring its compliance and also in complying with the order passed by this Court. Therefore, it is upto the Municipality to take appropriate action in the matter so that it can avoid further proceedings against it in the contempt case filed by the 3rd respondent. 7. Irrespective of Ext.P2, as far as the challenge against Ext.P9 is concerned, petitioner is justified in his contention that Ext.P9 is too vague in as much as it is not specific even about the alleged violations on the basis of which such order has been issued. Therefore, Ext.P9 calls for interference. 8. Accordingly, Ext.P9 is set aside and the Municipality is directed to pass fresh orders in pursuance to Exts.P7 and P8 after hearing the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp