IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 8423 of 2007(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ N.RAJAN, S/O. LATE NANU, RAJI BHAVAN, VETTUVENI MURI, HARIPAD P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.BENO ADV.SRI S.SHYAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY IT'S CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KARTHIKAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. THE DIVISIONAL FIRE OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. THE DIRECTOR, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. 6. SUNIL KUMAR M., S/O. MOHANAN PILLAI, MANNARATHU KIZHAKKATHIL HOUSE, VETTUVENI MURI, HARIPAD P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SRI.HAREESH.M SMT.G.R.LEKSHMI GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.K.J.MOHD.ANZAR SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS, STANDING COUNSEL, PCB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 1222 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C).Nos. 8423/2007-C & 1222/2008-U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.8423/2007 is that the sixth respondent is conducting saw-mill without licence from the Panchayat or from the other respondents who include the forest authorities and the Pollution Control Board. On entertaining this writ petition, I passed an order restraining the sixth respondent from conducting the saw-mill unless he is having a current valid licence issued to him by the Panchayat. A Statement has been filed by the Pollution Control Board producing Ext.R5 (13). Ext.R5(13) will show that two inspections were conducted by the Engineers of the Pollution Control Board in the premises where the sixth respondent was conducting saw-mill and on noticing that the directions issued to the sixth respondent were not being complied with by him, the Pollution Control Board has refused the consent. W.P.(C) No.1222/2008 is filed by the sixth respondent in W.P.(C) No.8423/2007. The prayer in that writ petition is that W.P.(C).Nos. 8423/2007-C & 1222/2008-U -: 2 :- Ext.P7 order of the Pollution Control Board rejecting the consent to him be quashed and Ext.P8 representation submitted by him, for a further inspection and for reconsideration of the question of issuing consent, be directed to be disposed of. It is seen that the licence issued by the second respondent-Panchayat to the sixth respondent in W.P.(C).No.8423/2007 will expire only by 31/03/2008. The sixth respondent through his learned counsel asserts before me that the sixth respondent has not complied with all the directions which had been given by the Pollution Control Board for containing/preventing the pollution caused on account of this saw-mill. In view of the above assertion and in view of the pendency of Ext.P8 in W.P.(C).No.1222/2008, I dispose of both the writ petitions issuing the following directions. The interim order dated 13/03/2007 passed in W.P.(C) No.8423/2007 will continue till orders are passed by the Environmental Engineer of Pollution Control Board on Ext.P8 in W.P.(C).No.1222/2008. The fourth respondent in W.P.(C).No.1222/2008 is directed to take up Ext.P8 in that case, conduct a further local inspection of the premises with W.P.(C).Nos. 8423/2007-C & 1222/2008-U -: 3 :- notice to the petitioner in that case and also the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.8423/2007. After such local inspection is conducted, the fourth respondent will hear the petitioners in both the cases and take a fresh decision on Ext.P9. In order to enable the fourth respondent to do that, Ext.P7 is quashed. Once fresh decision is taken by the fourth respondent on Ext.P9 application, that decision will be communicated to the Panchayat also, so that it will be open to the Panchayat to consider whether the licence currently issued to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8423/2007should be cancelled. At any rate, before taking a decision regarding cancellation of the current licence or regarding issuance of fresh licence upon its expiry, the Panchayat will hear the petitioner in both the cases. The concerned respondent will ensure compliance of the directions given above, at the earliest, and at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, Judge ms