IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5246 of 2009(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.V.ELIAS, PARASSERIL, MULAKULAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAI, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAKULAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLOOR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM. 5. MULAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MULAKULAM, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.5246 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Grievance of the petitioner is regarding Ext.P14, a prohibitory order issued by the 3rd respondent. 2. According to the petitioner he has all necessary licenses for carrying on the brick manufacturing activity. It is also stated that, in terms of Ext.P12 judgment, the petitioner is only liquidating the existing stock of clay and that he will not manufacture once the available stock is exhausted. It is stated that despite all this by Ext.P14, the Village Officer has issued a prohibitory order requiring the petitioner to discontinue the activities. 3. Government Pleader on instruction submits that the petitioner is continuing manufacturing activities without obtaining consent from the Pollution Control Board. Yet another contention now raised by the Government Pleader WP(c).No.5246/09 2 is that, whatever be the activities that are being carried on, since the place of work of the petitioner is a paddy field, such activity without obtaining necessary permit under the Kerala Land Utilisation order is illegal. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner has necessary consent issued by the Pollution Control Board. He reiterates his plea that he has already got a stock of clay and and that he only wants to liquidate the stock by using the same for brick manufacturing. It is stated that for liquidating the stock he need continue manufacturing only for another three weeks and that thereafter he will stop his brick manufacturing. 5. Taking into account the aforesaid submissions made by both the parties, I feel that if the petitioner has an available stock of clay which is already stored in the place of manufacturing, he should be allowed to liquidate the stock. Taking into account of the request of the petitioner that he needs only 3 weeks to liquidate the existing stock of clay, the WP(c).No.5246/09 3 writ petition disposed of as follows; 6. Petitioner shall produce before the 3rd respondent the consent of the Pollution Control Board that he has. Once the consent is produced before the 3rd respondent, it is directed that Ext.P14 shall be kept in abeyance for 3 weeks from the date of production of the consent and during that period it will be open to the petitioner to continue brick manufacturing and liquidate the existing stock. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.5246/09 4