IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2009 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14055 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANTONY LEO, AGED 64, S/O.LATE K.X.XAVIER, 39/6672, ALAPATT CROSS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 015. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LOCAL SELF GOVT., SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI REP. BY SECRETARY, MAIN OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD HEAD OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DISTRICT OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 5. K.K.CHERIAN, AGED 80, PROPRIETOR, SHERBROOK ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS, KURISUPALLY ROAD, KOCHI - 15. BY GP K R DEEPA FOR R1 BY SC M K CHANDRAMOHAN DAS FOR R3 AND R4 ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 14055 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2009 JUDGMENT Government Pleader takes notice for first respondent. Standing counsel takes notice for second, third and fourth respondents. Notice to fifth respondent is dispensed with preserving his right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2. The petitioner, through Ext.P1(a) has shown that Ext.P1 has been delivered in the office of the first respondent in January/February, 2009. The complaint therein is regarding the alleged pollution by an activity done by the fifth respondent. Without expressing anything on merits, this writ petition is ordered directing that Ext.P1 will be taken up, considered and disposed of by the fifth respondent, in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, so that any person aggrieved by that decision, would be entitled to seek further statutory relief in that regard. The fourth respondent would also WP(C) 14055/2009 2 do the needful on any complaint obtained from the petitioner in relation to the allegations in Ext.P1. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/30/5