IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 10415 of 2011(B)


1. A.C.SCRAP TRADERS,A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTEDBY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,MINISTRY OF

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.RAMESH BABU

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :28/06/2011

 O R D E R
                   P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
             ..............................................................................
                      W.P.(C) No.10415 OF 2011
              .........................................................................
                       Dated this the 28th June , 2011



                                   J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:

"A. To direct the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P1 application and Ext.P3 clarification within a reasonable time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court.

           B.     Any other relief which this Honourable

           Court         deems            fit       in      the         facts         and

           circumstances of the case. "

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner with intent to pursue the business dealing with the import of iron metal scraps filed Ext. P1 application dated 01.12.2010 before the second respondent for issuance of licence under the provisions of the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of furnishing clarification in respect of  W.P.(C) No.10415 OF 2011 2 Ext.P2 query, the matter is still kept in the cold storage, which made the petitioner to approach this Court to have the proceedings finalised.

3. When the matter came up for consideration, it was pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Central Government that, in view of the objection referred to in Ext.P2, the State Pollution control Board was very much a necessary party to the proceedings and it was accordingly, that the State Pollution Control Board has been impleaded in the party array as additional 3rd respondent, by virtue of order dated 23.06.2011 in I.A.No. 9498 of 2011.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State Pollution Control Board submits that no application whatsoever has been received from the petitioner and no proceeding is pending at the hands of the Board in connection with the issue projected in the writ petition; which statement is strongly rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the communication stated as issued by the Pollution Control Board in this regard.

W.P.(C) No.10415 OF 2011 3

5. The learned Central Government Counsel submits that, as clearly given at Sl.Nos. (ii) and (iii) of Ext.P2, it is essential for the petitioner to forward the Registration Certificate and Authorisation obtained from the concerned Pollution Control Board and further the 'Consent to operate' issued by the Board under Section 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution)Act, 1974 and Section 21 of Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution)Act, 1981. The learned Counsel further asserts that the idea and understanding of the petitioner, that the petitioner's duty will be over once he sends a copy of the application to the Pollution control Board and the rest is to be finalised by the second respondent, is thoroughly wrong and unfounded. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel for the respondents that Ext. P1 application itself is not liable to be entertained, as it does not bear any signature or date.

In the above circumstance, this Court finds that the petitioner is not entitled to have any relief at the hands of this Court. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed, however without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to pursue the matter,  W.P.(C) No.10415 OF 2011 4 satisfying all the requirements as insisted by the second respondent vide Ext.P2, on which event, it will be open for the second respondent to finalise the proceedings accordingly, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

lk