IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36092 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- PRAVEENKUMAR, S/O. PRABHAKARAN, AGED 25 YEARS, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, NENMENI PANCHAYATH, SULTHAN BATHERI TALUK, KUNDANI, THOVARIMALA P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANTONY JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. JAMES, S/O. MATHAI, KATTARUKUDIYIL HOUSE, KUNDANI, THOVARIMALA P.O., NENMENI VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, NENMENI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NENMENI P.O., KOLIYADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 6. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA FOR R3 & 4 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS, SC PCB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.36092 OF 2009 (F) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Though notice was served, there is no appearance on behalf of the first respondent. 2. Petitioner's complaint is that, without obtaining any licence from the 2nd or 4th respondent, first respondent is running a piggery farm, causing environmental pollution. According to him, he filed complaints before respondents 2 and 4 and that Exts.P1 and P2 notices were issued by the 2nd and 4th respondents. It is stated that ignoring the notices, first respondent is still continuing to operate the piggery farm. 3. Taking note of this allegation, this court passed an interim order dated 15th December, 2009, directing that if Exts.P1 and P2 are in force, the District Collector will ensure that the police force under the RDO is appropriately employed to see that those notices are strictly enforced. In view of the allegation that the 2nd respondent is not complying with the above order, it is directed that the 5th respondent shall ensure that the 2nd respondent complies with Exts.P1 and P2 orders on the production of a copy of the judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) vi JUDGE