IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 190 of 2010 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.2497/2010 Dated 27/01/2010 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN WPC ------------------------------ M/S.MARDEC R.K.LATEX PVT.LTD., VADAPURAM P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA-676 562, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT (OPERATIONS), MR.C.HARIDAS MENON. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.TERRY V.JAMES RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. MAMPAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MAMPAD P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, MAMPAD, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. MR.P.ABDUL KARIM, S/O.KOYAMU KURIKKAL, PUNNAPPALA HOUSE, MEPPADAM P.O., MAMPAD, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV.SRI.A. SUDHI VASUDEVAN,SC FOR R2 & R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.190/2010 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 3rd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is a company, running a factory in the 1st respondent Panchayat. Its licence has been cancelled as per Ext.P9 order of the Secretary of the Panchayat. Challenging that order, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge took the view that the appellant has alternative remedy against that order before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. In view of the alternative remedy available, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Challenging the said judgment, this appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. According to him, all the grounds taken in Ext.P9 order are irrelevant and therefore, the said order is ultra vires and void. It WA No.190/2010 - 2 - was issued without hearing the appellant also. Therefore, the learned Single Judge should have entertained the Writ Petition, it is submitted. 3. We notice that all the grounds taken against Ext.P9 can be effectively considered by the Tribunal and relief could be granted. Further, once the learned Single Judge takes the view that the Writ Petition cannot be entertained, in view of the alternative remedy available, the appellate court cannot interfere with the same, unless the exercise of discretion is shown to be arbitrary or perverse. We think, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is a plausible view on the facts of the case. Therefore, even if we were hearing the Writ Petition at the first instance and we would have entertained the Writ Petition, it is not a ground for us to interfere in appeal, as the view taken by the learned Single Judge is a plausible view and not an arbitrary or perverse view. WA No.190/2010 - 3 - In the result, the appeal fails and it is dismissed. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. nm.