IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 2723 of 2011(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.R.BAIJU, PARTNER, FAROOQ CONSTRUCTIONS FATHIMA BUILDINGS,VAZHICHERRY, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR. SIBY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MANNANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MANNANCHERRY.P.O., ALLEPPEY-688538, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, MANNANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MANNANCHERRY.P.O., ALLEPPEY-688538. 3. THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, ALLEPPEY-688013. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALLEPPEY. PIN-688001. 5. THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, M.P.APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHAKKAD, TRIVANDRUM-695014, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. ADV. MR. M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, POLL.C.BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 2723 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 24th February , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “i) issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P8 ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3rd respondent Pollution Control Board to permit the petitioner to run the tar mixing unit on compliance with the direction in Ext. P3 statement viz. Ext. R4 (b) therein iii) issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Human Rights Commission, Vazhuthackad, Trivandrum to permit the petitioner to run the tar mixing unit on compliance with the directions of the Pollution Control Board as ordered in Ext. P4 judgment; and iv) to grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and fit in the circumstances of the case.” W.P.(C) No. 2723 OF 2011 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is squarely covered by Ext. P4 judgment passed by this Court; despite which a fictitious complaint has been preferred before the 5th respondent Human Rights Commission without revealing the actual facts and figures and obtained some interim orders, so as to stall the proceedings being pursued by the petitioner in connection with the operation of the tar-mixing unit set up by the petitioner complying with all legal requirement to execute the work contract awarded to him. The learned counsel further submits that all the conditions imposed by the statutory authorities including the Pollution Control Board and those suggested in the course of the discussion on the intervention of the third respondent /District Collector, as evident from Ext. P6 minutes have been satisfied and that the petitioner has not violated any of the statutory prescriptions or other conditions stipulated. In the said circumstances, it is contended , there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for having issued Ext. P8 'stop memo' by the Panchayath on 17.01.2011, simply referring to the order stated as passed by the Human Rights Commission; W.P.(C) No. 2723 OF 2011 3 more so when the matter is already finalised by this Court vide Ext. P4 judgment . 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board as well, who submits that the petitioner has complied with all the requirements as instructed to be carried out. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, though there is an observation in Ext. P8 memo issued by the Panchayath referring to a 'stop memo' dated 01.01.2011, (alleging some infringement on the part of the petitioner after Ext. P4 judgment), all the defects have been rectified. It was accordingly that the petitioner was conducting the operations, which however stands stalled at the instance of the parties with the vested interests, who approached the Human Rights Commission, procuring an interim order behind the petitioner. It is stated that, though the petitioner has entered appearance before the Human Rights Commission producing all the relevant documents and raising necessary pleadings, the matter is not finalised, referring to the pendency of the writ petition. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does W.P.(C) No. 2723 OF 2011 4 not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case, but for directing the fifth respondent to have the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P9 finalised, immediately on filing an application by the petitioner for advancement of hearing with notice to all concerned, at any rate, within two weeks thereafter. It is ordered accordingly. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk