IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 718 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ ( AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.20702/2010 ) .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: --------------- SHERLY RAJAN, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.C.D.RAJAN, RESIDING AT CHATHEN CHIRAPPATTU HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE P.CHACKO RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MR.SUNNY, AGED 48 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY, MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682314. 2. FR.C.M.JOY, AGED 48 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, HEALTH OFFICER (RURAL), MULANTHURUTHY BLOCK & P.H.CENTRE, KEECHERY, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM. 3. MR.A.FAROOK SAIT, S/O.ABDULLA THAYAB SAIT, AGED 50 YEARS, SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN-20. 4. MR.UNEZ, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. Con.Case(C).No. 718 of 2011(S) 5. MR.AJIMON, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.THOMMAN, THAVOORATH HOUSE, KARIKODE, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM. 6. MR.VARGHESE, AGED 52 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THACHANPURATH HOUSE, KARIKODE, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR R3 BYSRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD R5 BY SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. M.H. HANIL KUMAR THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE © No. 718 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C)No. 20702 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 1st August , 2011 J U D G M E N T This Contempt of Court Case arises from the order dated 16.06.2011 in W.P.(C) No.20702 of 2010, whereby appropriate directions were given to the respondents to give effect to the order and to take all remedial measures, if at all any activities are being pursued by the 5th and 6th respondents or anybody under them giving rise to pollution. 2. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the Unit was in existence earlier and in view of the order passed by this Court, a stop memo was issued on 18.06.2011, a copy of which has been produced and marked as Annexure-R1 (a). The learned Counsel for the Panchayat submits that the Unit is not functioning as on date. 3. A report has been filed by the third respondent, Pollution Control Board pointing out that the inspections conducted, CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE © No. 718 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C)No. 20702 OF 2010 2 including the one on 21.07.2011 revealed that no work was going on in the Unit and that the same was found closed. The learned Counsel for the fifth respondent submits that the said respondent, who was operating the unit in the property of the 6th respondent, is no more interested in carrying out any operation either directly or indirectly and that the unit has already been closed down. It is also asserted that the said respondent has not chosen to violate the order passed by this Court under any circumstance. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the departmental authorities , particularly the police, submits that as per the instruction received, a joint inspection was conducted on 19.07.2011 by the Secretary of the Panchayat and the S.I. of Police, which revealed that the Unit had already been closed down and it is not functioning as on date. 5. After hearing all the parties concerned and also taking note of the specific submission made by the fifth respondent that he is not operating the Unit and that he does not intend to pursue any such activities in the property in question, this Court CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE © No. 718 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C)No. 20702 OF 2010 3 does not find it necessary to proceed with the matter any further. The above submission is recorded and the Contempt of Court case is closed, making it clear that, if any violation is committed by anybody in the property concerned, in respect of the cause of action projected in the concerned writ petition, appropriate steps shall be taken by the concerned authorities to give effect to the order already passed by this Court . The learned Counsel for the parties concerned submits that in view of the order passed in the COC, the writ petition itself has become infructuous. Since the said writ petition is not posted before this Court today, it is left to the parties to bring it to the notice of the Court as and when the matter is posted. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk