IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 441 of 2009() ------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DTD. 20/02/2009 IN WP(C) NO.36005/2008) APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. K.G. MATHEW, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.LATE GEE VARGHESE, KOTTUPALLIL HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY P.O., KOZHENCHERRY VIA, KOZHENCHERRY MURI, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. P. MATHAI, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. LATE DANIEL RESIDING AT PURATHOTTU HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY P.O. KOZHENCHERRY VIA, KOZHENCHERRY MURI, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. K.A. NINAN, AGED 71, S/O. LATE NINAN, RESIDING AT KOZHUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY P.O. KOZHENCHERRY VIA, KOZHENCHERRY MURI, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. K.A. KOSHY, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. LATE NINAN, RESIDING AT KOZHUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY P.O. KOZHENCHERRY VIA, KOZHENCHERRY MURI, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. C.A. SAMUEL, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O.LATE ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT CHARIPPURATHU HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY P.O. KOZHENCHERRY VIA, KOZHENCHERRY MURI, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 6. PONNAMMA AGED 40 YEARS, D/O. LATE ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT CHARIPPURATHU HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY P.O. KOZHENCHERRY VIA, KOZHENCHERRY MURI, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. Kss ..2/- ...2... W.A.NO.441/2009 7. SARAMMA EASWAR, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O. K.G. EASWAR, KOTTUPALLIL HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY P.O., KOZHENCHERRY VIA, KOZHENCHERRY MURI, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 8. JINU DAS, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. RAMADAS, GG BHAVAN, THEKKUMADA, KOZHENCHERRY P.O., KOZHENCHERRY VIA, KOZHENCHERRY MURI, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. MR.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, TIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA 3. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PLAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. THE ENVIRONEMENTAL ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. 6. DISTRICT PANCHAYATH PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 7. KOZHENCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1, R2 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. MEERA R3 & R5 BY MR. M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, PCB R7 BY ADV. MR.THOMAS ABRAHAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.171/09 IN W.A.NO.441/2009 DISMISSED 25/02/2009 SD/- J.B.KOSHY, AG.CHIEF JUSTICE SD/- V.GIRI, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss J.B.KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.441 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated 25th February, 2009 JUDGMENT Koshy, Ag.C.J . Panchayat is proposing to construct a waste treatment plant. It is submitted that it is only 15 cents of land in the water logged area near pampa river. Pending writ petition, Ext.R7(g) consent was given by the Pollution Control Board. Learned single Judge even though originally granted stay, after issuance of the consent, by the impugned order directed that construction may continue strictly complying with the conditions in the consent issued by the Pollution Control Board. It is submitted by the appellants that they filed an appeal against the consent order, but, that is not being proceeded with as original order was not issued to them. In the above circumstances, if copy of the order (Ext.R7(g)) is produced by the appellants before the appellate authority, appeal should be heard without delay on merit with notice to interested parties. Appellants can produce a copy of this judgment before the appellate authority for compliance. If appellants produce a copy of the consent order and stay petition within 10 days from today before the appellate authority, it should be considered and orders should be passed within three W.A.441/2009 2 weeks from today. Since the construction of the waste treatment plant can be made only after inviting public tenders and complying with the procedural requirements and there is no order allowing them to operate the waste treatment plant, no further orders are necessary. It is contended that in earlier inspection report it was reported by the very same environmental engineer that the area is not suitable for establishment of the solid waste treatment plant. The appellants can press this matter before the appellate authority. Appellants also may pray for an early hearing of the writ petition. The writ appeal is disposed of with the above observations. J.B.KOSHY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE V.GIRI JUDGE tks