IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 11872 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE PERUVAMBA SERVICE CO.OP BANK LTD. NO.F1648, PERUVAMBA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, NEAR DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. SC SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................... W.P.(C).11872/2011 ....................... Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner, a Service Co-operative Bank, is before this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5 order dated 28.3.2011 issued by the Pollution Control Board whereby the 'Mangalya Kalyana Mandapam', which was constructed by the petitioner in the year 1987 and is being run catering to the larger interest of general public, is abruptly ordered to be closed down, without even giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that based on a complaint by somebody behind the curtain, the respondent issued Ext.P3 show cause notice dated 18.10.2010, pursuant to which the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 reply on 25.10.2010. It is without considering Ext.P4, that the respondent has proceeded with further steps by issuing Ext.P5, which is under challenge in this writ petition. W.P.(C).11872/2011 2 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, who submits that Ext.P5 is very much an appealable order. This Court finds that, since Ext.P5 is very much appealable, petitioner could be relegated to avail the appellate remedy, directing the respondent to maintain 'status quo' till finalisation of such proceedings. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy against Ext.P5. If any such appeal is filed before the competent authority within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within two months thereafter. Status quo shall be maintained till such time. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs