IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26914 of 2008(D)


1. UMMER, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. V.M. NAZAR, S/O. MEETHIAN BAVA,

                        Vs



1. THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE KEEZHMAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

3. C.A. ISMAIL, S/O. ABDUL REHMAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :29/10/2008

 O R D E R
                          V.GIRI, J.
         -------------------------
                W.P.(C).No.26914 of 2008
         -------------------------
           Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008.


                       JUDGMENT

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of consent issued by the Pollution Control Board, in favour of the 3rd respondent, for conducting an Industrial Establishment for the manufacture of plastic pipes. According to the petitioners, the unit generates great environmental pollution and is located in a thickly populated area. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the licence issued, in this regard, by the 2nd respondent Panchayat in favour of the 3rd respondent.

2. It is now admitted, on all sides, that the petitioners have preferred an appeal against the grant of licence by the Pollution Control Board, before the Appellate Tribunal under the Air (Prevention and Pollution Control) Act. It seems that the Panchayat, though declined to issue a licence, had later, taken note of the consent issued by the Pollution Control Board and issued a licence. The said licence is valid from the date on which the consent order was issued. In other words, both the statutory authorities would be required to  W.P.(C).NO.26914/08 :: 2 ::

consider the renewal of the licence for the period beyond 31.12.2008.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to issue notice to the petitioners on renewal of consent sought for by the 3rd respondent for the period beyond 31.12.2008 and hear the petitioners before taking a decision on the application. So also, the 2nd respondent shall issue notice to the petitioners on any application for extension of the period of licence or renewal of the licence, as the case may be, sought for by the 3rd respondent for the period beyond 31.12.2008.

Sd/-

(V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//