IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 RP.No. 1101 of 2008(G) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.25478/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 6TH AND 7TH RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------- 1. PRIYA SAMBATH, SUMANGALIBHAVAN, T.C.43/345/1, GANGA NAGAR, KAMALESWARAM, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. B.S.RAJENDRAN, BHASKARA BHAVAN, T.C.43/345, GANGA NAGAR, KAMALESWARAM, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. M.MUTHUKUMAR, PROPRIETOR, SREE VENKITACHALAPATHY AGENCIES, T.C.43/341. BALAVAN NAGAR, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 2. CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM, CORPORATION OFFICE, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM. 4. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 5. KERALA LOKAYUKTA, LEGISLATURE COMPLEX, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 6. K.G.SURENDRAN, ACTION COUNCIL CONVENOR, T.C.43/4883/2, GANESOM BHAVAN, K.B.A.C. LANE RESIDENT ASSOCIATION, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV SHRI. THOMAS ABRAHAM R4 BY S.C. SMT. K.K. THULASY BHAI. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------- R.P. No. 1101 OF 2008 in W.P(C) NO: 25478 OF 2008-G ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd October, 2008. O R D E R This review petition is filed by respondents 6 and 7 in the writ petition. Writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:- i) That the petitioner will be free to remove the machineries and other equipments and perishable articles, if any, from the premises in question. ii) That the petitioner will not be permitted to continue any manufacturing activities in the premises until otherwise permitted by the statutory authorities. Iii) Petitioner will be allowed to continue repair works in the premises so that he could take steps for regularisation of the construction, obtain consent and other licences and if he so chooses, can revive manufacturing activities in the premises in question.” 2. It is submitted by the review petitioner that under the cover R.P.No: 1101/2008 2 of the judgment, the writ petitioner has revived manufacturing activities and is also constructing a bio-gas plant without obtaining any licence or permission from the Corporation. Though several factual allegations are made, I do not consider it necessary to examine the correctness of the same, for the disposal of this review petition. It is evident from the judgment that the judgment does not authorise the writ petitioner to do anything, otherwise than in compliance with the statutory requirements. 3. Therefore, it is clarified that if at all the petitioner has revived the manufacturing activities and is constructing a bio-gas plant, the directions in the judgment do not in any manner dispense with the requirement of compliance with the statutory provisions such as licences and permissions. If there is any statutory violation, it will be open to the review petitioner to move the appropriate authority for remedial action, as is permissible under law. Review petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jj