IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 W.P.(C).No. 1549 of 2008 (H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- VISWANATHAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 34 YEARS, VADAKKOTTIL VEETTIL, BUDHANOOR PERINGAD MURI, ENNAKKAD VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU M.JOHN RESPONDENT: --------------- THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =================== W.P.(C) NO. 1549 OF 2008 H =================== Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The complaint of the petitioner is regarding Ext.P5 order, by which the 1st respondent has ordered suspension of the consent to operate that was issued to the petitioner for operating its unit, M/s.Roshini Wirecut Bricks. The only reason stated in Ext.P5 is that the Legal Advisor of the Pollution Control Board has adviced that it is prudent to hold the consent in abeyance until and subject to orders from the Hon'ble Kerala Lok Ayukta and/or the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. 2. Though this case was adjourned for instructions of the standing counsel for the respondents, he submits that there is no instruction received. However, the counsel tells me that it is mainly because of the pendency of W.P.(C) No.12196/07 that Ext.P5 order was issued. The order in W.P.(C) No.12196/07 is Ext.P1. Ext.P1 only interdicts the petitioner from operating the W.P.(C)No.1549/08 : 2 : unit unless they have obtained the requisite licences and consents from the statutory authorities concerned. Therefore all that Ext.P1 requires is that the petitioner should obtain necessary licences and consents. The consent to operate issued by the Board is the consent that is mentioned in Ext.P1. Therefore, if consent has been obtained, Ext.P1 does not stand in the way of the petitioner from operating the unit, if other necessary licences are also obtained. Hence, Ext.P1 cannot be a justification for keeping in abeyance the consent that has been obtained by the petitioner. 3. What remains is the proceedings before the Kerala Lok Ayukta which is mentioned in Ext.P5. Counsel for the writ petitioner asserts before me that there is no order passed by the Lok Ayukta interdicting the Board from issuing the consent. Ext.P5 also does not say in express terms that there is any such order. The mere pendency of the proceedings instituted by a stranger before the Kerala Lok Ayukta cannot be a reason to hold the consent in abeyance, as has been done in Ext.P5. Therefore, in my view, there is absolutely no justification in issuing Ext.P5. W.P.(C)No.1549/08 : 3 : Hence, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P5. It is ordered that the consent to operate issued to the petitioner on 20/8/07 will remain in force and the petitioner will be entitled to the benefits thereof. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Rp