IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20007 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.A.MAHINKUTTY, S/O.ABOOBACKER, AGED 40, KOKKADAN HOUSE, VENGOLA VILLAGE, ALLAPRA P.O., KANDANTHARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. K.K.PAREED, S/O.KOCHU PILLA, AGED 50, KOKKADAN HOUSE, VENGOLA VILLAGE, KANDATHRA ALLAPRA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER-SECRETARY. 4. CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. 5. VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 6. SECRETARY, VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. K.K.MAHINKUTTY, PROPRIETOR, M/S.KAROTHUKUDY, PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, KANDANTHARA, PERUMBAVOOR. R1, R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA R3, R4 BY ADV.SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.20007 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners essentially challenge a decision issued by the competent authority under the Single Window Clearance Act which legislation should receive salutory recognition in as much as recourse to those procedures exclude the requirement of citizen scouting different forum to commence an activity. It would, therefore, be only advisable that this Court does not interfere with the order issued under that Act unless all statutory remedies are exhausted and only when it becomes exceptionally required. The said statute provides for an appeal to the competent authority. This situation is well conceded to by the learned counsel for the petitioners also. Under such circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to seek relief by way of appeal to that statue, this writ petition is dismissed preserving all contentions on merits. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.20/7.