IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 560 of 2009(N) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- MASTER SHIPYARD (P) LIMITED, 22/1748, INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, EDAKOCHI, KOCHI - 682 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY JOHN MATHEWS, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.SRI.MATHEWS POTHEN. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SMT.ANILA PETER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SHRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS, SC FOR R1. SMT.SUDHADEVI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.560 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 12th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P3 is an application submitted by the petitioner for consent to engage in the manufacture of small marine crafts. Orders were not passed on Ext.P3. However, on 22/07/2008, Ext.P6 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging that by virtue of the functioning of unit pollution was being caused. Though, reply was submitted by the petitioner well in time, after about three months, Ext.P8 order was passed ordering closure of the Unit. The petitioner challenged that order before the appellate authority by filing Ext.P9 appeal and the appeal also has not been finalised and the hearing scheduled on 01/01/2009 was adjourned again. As the result, the present position is that order on Ext.P3 consent application has not been passed, Ext.P8 closure direction is still operational and the appeal remains pending. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 2. From the facts of the case, I am satisfied that there has been a failure on the part of the 1st respondent in considering Ext.P3 WP(C) No.560/2009 -2- application for consent and there has been delay in considering Ext.P8 order. Having regard to the above, I direct that the 1st respondent shall pass orders on Ext.P3 application as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that in the meanwhile Ext.P8 will stand suspended. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg