IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4670 of 2007(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A.O.DAVIS, S/O.A.D.OUSEPH, AGE 32 YEARS, CARPENTER, ACHINIMADAN HOUSE, NJALUKKARA, AZHAKAM P.O., KARUKUTTY. BY ADV. SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ (SR.) SRI.JYOTHISH.J.KALLINGAL SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL LANES, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTER, ERNAKULAM AND CONVENOR, SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD, ERNAKULAM. 3. KARUKUTTY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARUKUTTY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. *ADDL.R5.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALI. **ADDL.R6. M.V.JOSE, AGED 60 YEARS, SON OF VAREED, NALKARA HOUSE, KARAYAMPARAMBA P.O., KARUKUTTY, ERNAKULAM. WPC 4670/07 *ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 28.3.07 IN THE WRIT PETITION. **ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 16.1.08 IN I.A.NO.763/08. R4 BY ADV. SMT.K.K.THULASY BHAI,SC,POLLUTION C.BOARD R3 ADV.SRI.C.A.CHACKO R1,R2 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR R6 BY ADV.SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.4670 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 5th February, 2008 JUDGMENT Mr.M.M.Abdul Aziz, Senior Counsel has addressed me extensively on all the grounds raised in the Writ Petition. He requested that the issue be considered on merits by this court and wanted me to appoint an Advocate Commissioner on the basis of I.A.No.1849/08. The prayer in I.A.No.1849/08 is two-fold. The first prayer is to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for a local inspection and filing a report on the various aspects mentioned therein and the second prayer is to enlarge the time for complying with the directions issued by this court on 31.1.2008. The direction issued on 31.1.2008 was that the planer and lathe referred to in Annexure A report submitted by the Sub Inspector which require electrical power for their operation shall be shifted by the petitioner immediately to his residential premises or to some premises other than the premises where the unit is functioning. Such a direction was issued by me in the light of Ext.P2 judgment which has attained finality and in the light of the allegation that Ext.P2 is being violated by the writ petitioner. I am not inclined to modify that direction since it is seen that Ext.P6 notice issued by the Panchayat is appealable under the W.P.C.No.4670/07 - 2 - statute. The statutory appeal against the same which has got trappings of a final order in so far as the direction regarding closure of the unit is concerned is to be filed before the Council of the Panchayat. However, considering the submission seriously made by the learned senior counsel that Vice President of the Panchayat who is a close relative of the additional 6th respondent is having a personal interest in the matter, I am inclined to direct the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions to entertain and dispose of an appeal to be filed by the petitioner against Ext.P6. Under these circumstances, I dispose of the Writ Petition directing continuance of the interim order dated 12.2.2007 and permitting the petitioner to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions against Ext.P6 provided the petitioner shifts the planer and the lathe referred to in Annexure A report to the satisfaction of the 4th respondent. The appeal to be preferred by the petitioner shall be accompanied by a certificate issued by the 4th respondent to the effect that the planer and the lathe has been removed by the petitioner from the premises in question. The additional 6th respondent shall be made a party in the prospective appeal. If such an appeal is received by the Tribunal within one month from today, the Tribunal will entertain that appeal W.P.C.No.4670/07 - 3 - and dispose of the same in accordance with law, at its earliest. The time limit of seven days fixed as per the order dated 31.1.2008 for shifting the lathe and the planer is enlarged accordingly. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE