IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36238 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PETER MATHEW, AGED 54, S/O. MATHEW, CVHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, THUTHIYOOR, KAKKANAD.P.O, ERNAKULAM - 682030. BY ADV. SRI.C.T.JOSEPH SRI.JOE POLLAYIL SRI.ROSHIN IPE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STTE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PLAMOOD, PATTOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM - 682030. 3. SRI.A.M. JOSEPH, AGED 65, S/O. MICHAEL, ASARIPARAMBU, THUTHIYOOR, KAKKANAD.P.O, ERNAKULAM. BY SC SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ....................... W.P.(C).36238/2009 ....................... Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Ext.P10 order dated 20.10.2009 passed by the Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Ernakulam, refusing consent to operate a quarry is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner was conducting quarrying operations in the lands situated in Survey No.163/1 of Vazhakkala Village on the strength of a quarrying permit issued by the Geologist, Ernakulam. The said permit was valid till 16.12.2009. He had not however obtained consent from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. He applied for such consent by submitting Ext.P6 application dated 9.3.2009. Thereafter he filed W.P.(C).29513 of 2009 in this Court aggrieved by the delay on the part of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board in passing orders. When the said writ petition came up for admission on 20.10.2009, this Court after hearing the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board disposed of the said writ petition by Ext.P9 judgment with a direction to the Environmental Engineer, W.P.(C).36238/09 2 Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Ernakulam, to consider Ext.P6 application and pass orders thereon within one month from that date. This Court also directed that before a final decision is taken in the matter, the petitioner and the third respondent in this writ petition shall be heard. It appears that on the very same day, Ext.P10 order was passed declining consent. Ext.P10 is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The petitioner contends that in view of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment, the second respondent ought to have heard the petitioner and the third respondent before passing orders on his application for consent to operate the quarry. Sri.M.K.Chandra Mohan Das, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.7.2009 and that it was after his reply was received and considered that Ext.P10 order was passed. He submits that in such circumstances, Ext.P10 does not merit interference. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on both sides. The petitioner applied for consent to operate the quarry way back in March 2009. When that application was not considered, he filed W.P.(C).29513 of 2009 in this Court. In W.P.(C).36238/09 3 that writ petition this Court passed Ext.P9 judgment on 20.10.2009 directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's application for consent and pass orders thereon, after affording him and the third respondent a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This Court had also taken note of the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board that complaints have been received from the third respondent and others regarding the quarry conducted by the petitioner. It was after taking note of the said submission that this Court directed the second respondent to pass orders after affording the petitioner and the third respondent a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Though Ext.P10 discloses that notice had been issued to the petitioner on the complaint filed by the third respondent and others, Ext.P10 does not disclose that the petitioner and the third respondent were heard before it was passed. Ext.P10 is dated 20.10.2009, the date on which Ext.P9 judgment was delivered. Therefore, it has to be necessarily held that Ext.P10 is not accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment. In such circumstances, I am constrained to hold that the second respondent should reconsider the matter and pass revised W.P.(C).36238/09 4 orders after affording to the petitioner and the third respondent a reasonable opportunity of being heard. I accordingly allow this writ petition, quash Ext.P10 and direct the second respondent to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders after notice to and affording the petitioner and the third respondent a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The second respondent shall pass a reasoned order adverting to the submissions made by the petitioner and the third respondent and giving reasons in support of his conclusions and findings. Final orders in the matter shall be passed within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces or the second respondent receives a certified copy of this judgment. The second respondent shall after orders are passed as directed above, communicate copies thereof to the petitioner and the third respondent. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs