MAHINKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issues raised in these Writ Petitions are connected and therefore the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) For convenience, I shall first deal with W.P. (C) 25473/2009.

(3.) Third Respondent in this Writ Petition is the State Board constituted under the Kerala Industrial Single Windows Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999 (Act 5 of 2000). 10th Respondent submitted an application to the 3rd Respondent under Section 8 of the Act for obtaining necessary clearances or licences, for the purpose of establishing a Veneer manufacturing Unit. The application was considered and by Ext.P2 proceedings, the 3rd Respondent recommended to the 8th Respondent Panchayat to grant installation permit to the 10th Respondent. Against Ext.P2 proceedings, Petitioners filed Ext.P3 appeal before the 3rd Respondent, the State Board constituted under Section 3 of the Act. The appeal was considered and by Ext.P5 proceedings, taking into account the fact that the Pollution Control Board has granted consent and the District Medical Officer and other authorities have granted their non objections, the State Board confirmed Ext.P2. Pollution Control Board and the Panchayat were also directed to ensure continuous manufacturing and strict adherence to the regulations by the proposed Unit of the 10th Respondent. It is challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the State Board, this Writ Petition has been filed.