IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8874 of 2011(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SABU VARGHESE, S/O.K.C.VARGHESE, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT KORINGOLETHADATHIL HOUSE, KARIMPANA.P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM-686 662. BY SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU, SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR). RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICE, KERALA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682 020. *ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED: R3. SAJITH PAUL, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. PAULOSE PAILY, PATTIYANIPUZHAYIL, MANNATHOOR PO, MUVATTUPUZHA. (*ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 29/03/2011 IN I.A.NO.5844/11) BY ADV. SRI. M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, KSPCB ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.8874/2011 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31/05/2010 IN WP(C) NO.16065/2010. P2: COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 7/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ........................................... W.P(C).NO.8874 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 4th day of April, 2011. JUDGMENT The main contention raised in this writ petition is against Ext.P3, an order passed by the first respondent withdrawing Ext.P2 consent to operate a quarry, that was issued to the petitioner. The ground raised in the writ petition is mainly that contrary to the statutory provisions Ext.P3 order was issued without putting the petitioner on notice or giving the petitioner an opportunity to make his representations in the matter. 2. Although the standing counsel appearing for the Board sought to sustain Ext.P3, admittedly this order is issued without even issuing a notice to the petitioner or allowing him to make his representations in the matter. Ext.P3 therefore is an order issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. Therefore I direct that Ext.P3 will be treated as a show cause notice. It will be open to the petitioner to file his objections to Ext.P3. It is directed that, if any such W.P(C).NO.8874 OF 2011 : 2 : objection is filed by the petitioner to the second respondent, the second respondent will issue notice to the petitioner and the additional third respondent, hear both the parties and pass orders in the matter in accordance with law. This the second respondent or the competent authority in the first respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible at any rate within four weeks of filing of such objection. It is clarified that the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C)No.16065/2010 shall not stand in the way of respondents 1 and 2 in considering the matter as directed above and that this judgment will not enable the petitioner to operate the quarry in the meanwhile. Sd/= ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. cl /true copy/ P.A. to Judge.