IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15588 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. MURALEEDHARAN ACHARI, S/O MADHAVAN ACHARI, AGED 59 YEARS, THEKKEDATHU KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, KARIKKAL, KARIMPINPUZHA P.O, PUTHUR, KOLLAM. 2. SREEKUMAR, SON OF GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 38 YEARS, GEETHALAYAM, KARIMPINPUZHA, PUTHUR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. PAVITHRESWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PANGODU, PUTHUR, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. 4. RAJITH KUMAR, S/O MURALEEDHARAN, NARAYANI SADANAM, KARIKKAL, KARIMPINPUZHA P.O, PAVITHRESWARAM, KOLLAM. ADV. SMT.K.K.THULASY BHAI,Sc,POLLUTION C.BOA FOR R2 SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR FOR R4 SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM FOR R4 SRI.BEPIN PAUL FOR R4 SRI.T.S.AKHILA KUMAR FOR R1 SRI.SYAM J SAM FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.15588/09 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.2.2009. EXT.P2: TRUE COPIES OF THE COMPLAINTS FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 26.2.2009. EXT.P3: TRUE COPIES OF THE COMPLAINTS FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.2.2009. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF SITE PLAN. EXTS. OF R2 EXT.R2(A): A COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH DT 16.3.2009. EXT.R2(B): A COPY OF THE REPLY TO RTI WAS GIVEN TO THE PETITIONERS. EXTS. OF R4 EXT.R4(A): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, GENERAL MANAGER DT 26.12.2009. EXT.R4(B): THE ACKNOWLEDGE ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CNETER DT 1.1.2009. EXT.R4(C): TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYAT NO:395/08-09 DT 11.2.09. EXT.R4(D): THE TRUE COPY FO THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL OFFICER DT 24.2.2009. EXT.R4(E): TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION ISSUED BY THE INSPECTORS OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS GRADE II, KUNDARA DT 25.2.2009. EXT.R4(F): TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ALONG WITH THE SITE PLAN ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER DT 16.3.2009. EXT.R4(G): THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER DT 28.4.2009. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 15588 OF 2009 (P) ===================== Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners claim to be the residents of the area, coming under the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent Panchayat where the 4th respondent is proposing to establish a Hollow Brick Manufacturing Unit. According to the petitioners, if the unit is established, that will result in water and environmental pollution. It is stated that apprehending the same, they filed Exts.P1 to P3 before respondents 1 to 3 requesting that licence and other clearances shall not be issued to the 4th respondent. It is stated that without considering the objections, respondents 2 and 3 have granted consent and NOC and that the Panchayat should now be directed not to issue the licence. 2. The 4th respondent on the other hand submits that he is entitled to get the licence from the Panchayat. He points out that he has obtained NOC of the Fire and Rescue Services, licence from the Inspector of Factories, consent from the Pollution Control Board and NOC from the District Medical Officer and copies of these documents are Exts.R4(D) to R4(G). It is stated that having WPC 15588/09 :2 : complied with all statutory requirements, there is no reason to interdict the Panchayat from granting the licence applied for by him. 3. Thus, it is obvious that the application made by the 4th respondent to the 1st respondent is pending consideration and no orders have been passed so far. As seen from the documents produced by the 4th respondent, he has obtained necessary clearances and licences, there is no reason why the Panchayat should be interdicted from considering the application, which the Panchayat is duty bound to do. Therefore, I see no reason to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of directing that it will be open to the 1st respondent Panchayat to consider the application made by the 4th respondent for licence. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp