IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8282 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- K.V.JOSE, KUDIYIRIPPIL HOUSE, MATTOOR, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. TE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 020. 2. THE KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALADY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN 683 574. 3. CHRISTY MODERN RICE MILL, MATTOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, POULOSE, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, MATTOOR, KALADY, PIN – 683 574. R1 BY SRI. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.8282 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 17th March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is a farmer and President of the Mattoor Pallithazham Padasekhara Samithi filed this writ petition mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to consider and pass orders on Exts.P4 and P5 representations after hearing the parties and also to take appropriate action against the third respondent for violation of the terms and conditions in the consent/licence issued to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P6 which is the test report dated 29.1.2011 by the Centre for Water Resources Department and Management itself would speaks of the violation. According to him, as against the tolerance limits of total suspended solids, the samples 1, 2 and 3 would contain 2268 1580 and 2080 respectively. Other parameters are also exceeded the tolerance limits, going by Ext.P6. On receipt of Ext.P6, the petitioner has produced the same before the Pollution Control Board along with Ext.P4. However, no steps have so far been taken. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel for the first respondent. WP(C).No.8282/2011 2 The learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that appropriate steps would be taken in the matter and Ext.P4 would be disposed of in accordance with law. This is recorded. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P4 in the light of Ext.P6 and, if required, it will be open to the competent authority under the first respondent to conduct a fresh inspection as well to ascertain the present position. Needless to say that any such inspection, action on Ext.P4 or any other action that is likely to adversely affect the 3rd respondent shall be taken only with sufficient notice to the third respondent. So also, any further action on Ext.P4 shall also be taken only after affording an opportunity of being heard to the 3rd respondent as well. At any rate, after making such inspection, appropriate action shall be taken in the matter expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // true copy // P.S. to Judge