IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10357 of 2010(T) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.V.JOSE, KUDIYIRIPPIL HOUSE, MATTOOR, KALADY (PRESIDENT, MATTOOR PALLITHAZHAM PADASEKHARA SAMITHI) KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE KALADY PANCHAYATH, KALADY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. CHRISTY MODERN RICE MILL, MATTOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER POULOSE, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, MATTOOR, KALADY. R1 BY ADV. MR.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.10357 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF MARCH, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner seeks for a direction to the Pollution Control Board to take appropriate measures to prevent pollution due to the activities of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent is a modern rice mill, which is engaged in the manufacture of rice after processing the paddy. According to the petitioner, the process that is undertaken by the 4th respondent results in the formation of huge quantity of waste water having filthy smell. It is submitted that there was a civil dispute between the parties and finally by Exhibit P1 order, C.M.A.No.3/08 has been disposed of wherein an injunction has been granted in favour of the wife of the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the suit. 2. Exhibit P4 is a detailed representation submitted by the petitioner before the 1st respondent. It is further pointed out that going by the contents in Exhibit P3 also the allegations of the petitioner are really substantiated. W.P.(C)No.10357/10 -2- 3. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take a decision on Exhibit P4 after hearing the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent. It will be open to the 1st respondent or any Officer authorised by him to conduct a local inspection to verify whether the allegations raised by the petitioner are correct. Appropriate decision will be taken within a period of one month. The petitioner will produce a copy of the Writ Petition along with a copy of the judgment for compliance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE dsn