IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT:

             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

       THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/25TH JYAISHTA, 1939

                     WP(C).No. 7822 of 2017 (C)
                     ---------------------------


PETITIONER:
-----------

            ABHILASH V.
            S/O VASUDEVAN, AGED 37 YEARS, VETTUVILA,
            PERINAD, KOLLAM-691601.


            BY ADV. SRI.R.KISHORE (KALLUMTHAZHAM)

RESPONDENTS:
------------

          1. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
            OFFICE OF THE STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
            TRIVANDRUM-695001, REPRESENTED BY MEMBER
            SECRETARY.

          2. CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
            KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
            TRIVANDRUM-695001.

          3. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
            KERALA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT
            OFFICE, KRISHNA LEELA TOWERS, KADAPPAKADA,
            KOLLAM-691008.

          4. SECRETARY
            KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM, PIN:689001.


            R4  BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS,SC,KOLLAM MPT
            R1 TO R3 BY SRI. T.NAVEEN  SC,
                 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)  HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD  ON
     15-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 7822 of 2017 (C)
---------------------------


                             APPENDIX


PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------

EXHIBIT P1:      THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 2750/2017
                 DATED 27TH MARCH 2017 IS PRODUCED.

EXHIBIT P2:      THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY THE 3RD
                 RESPONDENT NUMBERED AS PCB/KO/ICO/G/713/2016 DATED
                 23.5.2016 IS PRODUCED.

EXHIBIT P3:      THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE 4TH
                 RESPONDENT IS PRODUCED.

EXHIBIT P4:      THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTENTION TO REVOKE NOTICE
                 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESONDENT IS PRODUCED.

EXHIBIT P5:      THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVOCATION ORDER ISSUED BY THE
                 3RD RESPONDENT IS PRODUCED.

EXHIBIT P6:      THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT AND PHOTOGRAPH
                 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 11.1.2017 AND THE
                 RECEIPT OF THE STATEMENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IS
                 PRODUCED.

EXHIBIT P7:      THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING THE PETITION
                 ACCOMPANIED WITH A CIRCULAR SUBMITTED BY THE
                 PETITIONER IS PRODUCED.

EXHIBIT P8:      THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 25447/2016
                 DATED 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016 IS PRODUCED.


RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------


                 NIL




                                        //TRUE COPY//



                                        P.A. TO JUDGE




JJJ



              K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
              ------------------------------------------
             W.P.(C) No. 7822 of 2017 (C)
              ------------------------------------------
                  Dated: 15th June, 2017


                     J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved with Exts.P5 and P7 orders passed by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board.

2. The petitioner carries on an Engineering work shop with a valid consent issued by the Pollution Control Board. Ext.P4 notice was issued to the petitioner threatening revocation of the consent, for reason of adequate enclosure not being provided for the work shed and the sign board not being provided near the main entrance of the unit. No reply was submitted by the petitioner, in which circumstance Ext.P5 order was passed revoking the consent. Ext.P7 is only a consequential order.

W.P.(C) No. 7822/2017 -2-

3. Ext.P5 order is an appeallable order before the Appellate Authority constituted under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. In such circumstance, the petitioner would have to avail such remedy before the Appellate Authority and the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is declined.

The writ petition is closed, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. No Costs.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 15/6/17