IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 W.P.(C).No. 25134 of 2008(P) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- ALPHONSA JOHNY, PROPRIETOR J.J., TIMBERS NEAR PANAMBILLY COLLEGE, POTTA P.O., CHALAKUDY - 680 722. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE SRI.M.C.ANTONY RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY, CHALAKUDY - 680 722, 2. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, POONKUNNAM,THRISSUR 680002. BY ADV. SRI. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC FOR PCB ADV. SRI. M.P. ASHOK KUMAR, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 25134 OF 2008 P ==================== Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides 2. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P12. 3. Ext.P12 is the proceedings of the 1st respondent cancelling the licence granted to the petitioner. The allegation is that the petitioner's establishment is functioning without a consent obtained from the Pollution Control Board. To Ext.P10 show cause notice, petitioner submitted Ext.P11 wherein it was stated that all that they want is two weeks time to produce the consent for which they have already made an application. 4. It is stated that without granting the time or even granting an opportunity of hearing, Ext.P12 order was passed cancelling the licence. It is stated that as a result of Ext.P12, a running unit has been closed down rendering about 15 employees jobless. Another point urged by the counsel for the petitioner is that the person whose complaint which led to Ext.P10 himself had, as per Ext.P2 consented to the running of the establishment. 5. In my view, Ext.P12 being an order of the Secretary of the WPC 25134/08 :2 : Municipality, since statutory remedies are provided, it is for the petitioner to avail of the same. But, having regard to the fact that the petitioner's is a running an establishment employing several workers, I feel in order to enable the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal and seek appropriate interlocutory orders, it is only reasonable that Ext.P12 be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from today. 6. Leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy available to them and that in the meanwhile for 2 weeks from today, Ext.P12 shall be kept in abeyance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp