IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3451 of 2009(J) ----------------------------------- PETITIONERS : ---------------------- 1. P.U.JAMES, PARUTHIKKATTVYPPEL, MEVALLOOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. M.B.HASSAN, MAVANA HOUSE, CHOWARA, VELLOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB SRI.T.P.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENTS : -------------------------- 1. THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KOTTAYAM, DISTRICT OFFICE, REP; BY GEOLOGIST. 2. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM. 5. THE VELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VELLOOR, KOTTAYAM, REP; BY ITS SECRETARY. BY SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M. K. CHANDRA MOHANDAS, SC, PCB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 2/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3451 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners are conducting brick manufacturing Units. According to the petitioners, they have all the licences and even Panchayath has passed Exhibit P15 resolution, resolving to grant licence. However acting upon the directions of the 3rd respondent on the basis that the petitioner's establishment did not have the required licences, the 4th respondent is forcing them to close down their establishments. It is with that grievance this writ petition has been filed. 2. As already stated, the case of the petitioners is that they have all the required licences. If that be so, directions issued on the basis that the establishment did not have licence is factually incorrect. 3. Having regard to the fact that the 4th respondent has taken the aforesaid steps on the basis of the order issued by the 3rd respondent, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to approach the 3rd respondent and produce the licences, in which event, the 3rd respondent shall peruse those licences and if he is satisfied that the W.P.(C) No.3451/ 2009 2 petitioners possess the necessary licences, appropriate orders shall be passed enabling the petitioners to resume their brick manufacturing activities. Learned counsel also complains against the 5th respondent. According to the petitioners, by Exhibit P15 resolution referred above, Panchayat has passed the resolution on 21/01/2009 to issue lincence. However, licence has not been issued so far. Petitioners state that absence of Panchayat licence is one of the grounds relied on by the 3rd respondent. Considering this grievance, it is directed that the 5th respondent shall take necessary steps in pursuance to Exhibit P15, resolution dated 21/1/20009, for the issue of licence, subject to the petitioners satisfying the conditions specified. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd and 5th respondents for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm