IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4725 of 2011(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER --------------- K.V.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, S/O.LATE NARAYANAN NAIR,AGED 64 YEARS, KANJILI POURNAMI HOUSE, VENGOOR, KIDANGOOR PO, ANGAMALY-VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,OFFICE OF THE ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY, ANGAMALY PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN 683 572. 2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20,REP.BY ITS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER. 3. P.C.PAULOSE,S/O.CHERIA , PADAYATTIL HOUSE, VENGOOR, KIDANGOOR PO, ANGAMALY VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN 686 672. 4. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE AND BY ADV. SRI.S.SHARAN BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. P.N. SANTHOSH BY ADV. MR. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, PCB. R3 BY DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4725 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.01.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/EKM/IAO-52/2010 DATED 07.05.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.05.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.PCB/EKM/IAO-52/2010 DATED 10.06. 2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 19.06.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION NO.PCB/EKM/IAO-52/2010 DATED 12.07.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.07.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION NO.PCB/EKM/IAO-52/2010 DATED 09.09..2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.09.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PCB/EKM/IAO-52/2010 DATED 30.09..2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.01.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.01.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P14 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.01.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND AND 4TH RESPONDENTS. WP(C).No. 4725 of 2011(M) RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a) : COPY OF THE ITEM PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA KARSHKAN MAGAZINE NOVEMBER, 2008. EXT.R3(b) : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VETERINARY SURGEON, ANGAMALY DATED 10.07.2010. EXT.R3(c) : COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. EXT.R3(d) : COPY OF THE LETTER DAT ED 14.03.2011 FROM THE MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, ANGAMALY BRANCH. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 4725 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 18th March , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents 1,2 and 4 to close down the cattle shed of the 3rd respondent , forthwith., ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents 1,2 and 4 to consider and dispose of Exts.P13 and P14 representations, forthwith. iii. Issue such other writ, order or direction, which may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The main grievance, as projected in the writ petition appears to be that despite the specific instructions/orders of the Pollution Control Board and other authorities concerned referring W.P.(C) No. 4725 OF 2011 2 to the pollution stated as being caused by the third respondent, the pollution is not abated and that Ext. P11 order is still to be implemented which made the petitioner to approach this Court. 3. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit on 14.03.2011, disputing the facts and figures. However, an additional counter affidavit has been filed on 16.03.2011 stating that the said respondent has already decided to wind up the 'cattle farm' and that no contentions raised in the counter affidavit or in the additional counter affidavit are intended to be pressed before this Court. The learned Counsel for the said respondent also submits that the only relief sought for is to permit the third respondent to wind up the business in a viable manner, for which some breathing time is required for, which according to the third respondent is 'six months'. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner also fairly submitted that a reasonable time can be fixed by this Court in view of the affidavit filed by the third respondent as to the closure of the business intending to dispose of the cattle farm. W.P.(C) No. 4725 OF 2011 3 5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the third respondent can be given a reasonable time of 'four months' from today, to wind up the business as undertaken and to solve the issue once and for all. The third respondent is granted four months' time accordingly and the writ petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk