IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH, 2009/5TH CHAITHRA, 1931. WP(C).No. 8544 of 2009(K) PETITIONER(S): RAJAN,S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 48 YEARS,VETTUKATTIL HOUSE, VETTILAPARA,OORNGATTIRI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE OORNGATTIRI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, OORNGATTIRI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, MANJERI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 5. P.M.MUHAMMED,S/O.KAMMUNNI HAJI, PROPRIETOR,M.A.CRUSHER AND METALS, OORNGATTIRI,VETTILAPARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE,MALAPPURAM. ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN FOR R6 SRI.K.M.FIROZ FOR R5 SRI. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2009, ALONG WITH W.P.C.NO. 9679/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 8544/2009 ------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT. 10-4-2008. EXT.P2 COMMUNICATION DT. 19-9-2008. EXT.P3 REPORT DT. 17-11-2008. EXT.P4 LICENCE ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P5 ORDER DT. 12-2-2009. EXT.P6 COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) Nos. 8544 & 9679 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 26th March, 2009. J U D G M E N T In W.P(C) No. 9679/2009, the petitioner complains that the 1st respondent-Panchayat is not considering the application for renewal of licence submitted by the petitioner in respect of a quarry and crusher unit. In W.P(C) No. 8544/2009, the petitioner therein seeks a direction to the 1st respondent-Panchayat not to renew the licence issued to the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 9679/2009. In W.P(C) No. 8544/2009, notice has been served on the 1st respondent-Panchayat by special messenger, but they have not chosen to enter appearance. 2. I have heard both sides. 3. I am of opinion that these two writ petitions can be disposed of by directing the 1st respondent-Panchayat to consider the application for renewal of licence submitted by the petitioner in W.P (C) No.9679/2009, after hearing all parties concerned. Counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 8544/2009 points out that as is evidenced by Ext. P3 letter from the Revenue Divisional Officer to the District Collector, the petitioner has already extracted more than the permissible quantity of metal from the quarry in question. Learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board submits that the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 9679/2009 has not obtained consent from the Pollution Control Board. 4. I am not inclined to go into the merits of the rival contentions. When the petitioner in 9679/2009 has submitted an application for renewal of a licence, the Panchayat has a duty to consider and pass orders on the same expeditiously. But that shall only be after taking into account the contentions of the petitioners in both the writ petitions as also those of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Geologist and the Pollution Control Board. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction W.P.C. No. 8544 & 9679/2009 -: 2 :- to the Oorangattiri Grama Panchayat to consider the application for renewal stated to have been submitted by the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 9679/2009, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners in both the writ petitions and after ascertaining whether all legal formalities have been completed with by the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 9679/2009, if necessary, by obtaining appropriate information from the Pollution Control Board and the Geologist. The entire proceedings shall be completed and orders passed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/