IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29513 of 2009(H)


1. PETER MATHEW, AGED 54,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,

3. SRI.A.M.JOSEPH, AGED 65,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.T.JOSEPH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :20/10/2009

 O R D E R
                         P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
                 -----------------------------
                    W.P(C) No. 29513 of 2009-H
                ------------------------------
             Dated this the 20th day of Octber, 2009.

                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s.Kambalath Granites, Kakkanad. He is carrying on quarrying operations in the land situated in Survey No.163/1 of Vazhakkala Village, on the strength of Ext.P2 quarrying permit issued by the Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, Ernakulam District. The said permit is valid till 16.12.2009. However he has not obtained the necessary clearance from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. It is stated that he has applied for consent by submitting Ext.P6 application dated 9.3.2009 before the second respondent. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition is that till date orders have not been passed thereon. Relying on Section 21(4) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the petitioner contends that the second respondent had duty to pass orders on Ext.P6 application within a period of four months. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the second respondent to consider Ext.P6 application and pass orders thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this  W.P(C) No. 29513 of 2009-H 2 Court.

Sri.M.K.Chandramohan Das, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board submits that a memo has been issued to the petitioner to stop quarrying operation based on a complaint filed by the third respondent and others. He also submits that the petitioner's application for consent will be considered in accordance with law. In the light of the said submission and having regard to the fact that nearly seven months have passed after Ext.P6 application was submitted, I dispose of this writ petition with the direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P6 application and pass final orders thereon within one month from today. Needless to say, before a final decision taken in the matter, the petitioner and the third respondent shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Sd/-

P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab