Kerala High Court
Maggie D' Cruz vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board on 13 April, 2012
Author: S.Siri Jagan
Bench: S.Siri Jagan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2012/24TH CHAITHRA 1934
WP(C).No. 9678 of 2012 (H)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. MAGGIE D' CRUZ, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. D'CRUZ,
ORULOTH HOUSE, 18/120, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-682006.
2. LINCY D'CRUZ, AGED 30 YEARS, 2/O. JAFFRIN,
DO. DO.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.ANEESH JAMES
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PULIMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN. 695 002.
2. THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
ERNAKULAM - PIN: 682031.
3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI,
COCHIN-682 011.
4. T. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O. THAMPI, AGED ABOUT 67,
PARTNER, KRISHNA OJUS SAW MILL, PALLURUTHY,
COCHIN-682 006.
5. DILEEP, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, AGED ABOUT 37,
PARTNER, DO. DO. DO.
BY SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION
BY SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13-04-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 9678 of 2012
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 13th day of April, 2012.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are aggrieved by the alleged pollution caused by an industrial unit run by respondents 4 and 5. Against the same the petitioners have filed Exts. P3 to P5 complaints before the 2nd respondent. The petitioners seek expeditious consideration of Exts. P3 to P5.
2. I have heard the standing counsel for the 2nd respondent also.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts. P3 to P5, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as well as respondents 4 and 5, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If necessary, the 2nd respondent shall cause an inspection of the premises also to ascertain the correctness of the allegations of the petitioners.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/