ABDUL RAHEEM.M.C Vs. NANNAMBRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case set up in the above Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows :

(2.) Heard Sri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.T.Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board appearing for the 3 rd respondent and Sri. Jamsheed Hafiz, learned advocate appearing for contesting respondent No.5. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this Writ Petition, notices to respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 will stand dispensed with.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already made application before the 3 rd respondent-Environmental Engineer of the Malappuram District of the Pollution Control Board for renewal of Ext.P-3 consent and that it is expected that orders in the matter of consent would be issued by the 3 rd respondent without any further delay. Further that, thereafter, it is expected that the 2 nd respondent-Secretary of the Grama Panchayath would issue orders relating to the renewal of the D&O license issued to the petitioner as per Ext.P-1, without much delay, after the issuance of the consent by the 3 rd respondent, etc. That the petitioner has manly sought for grant of 45 days' time to implement the impugned Ext.P-11 order, as it is expected that in the meanwhile, the petitioner would be able to secure the necessary renewal of the consent and the renewal of the D&O license from the abovesaid authorities. But that, the 2nd respondent has already granted 15 days' time as per Ext.P-11 order dated 07.08.2020. The plea for further extension of time is seriously opposed by Sri.Jamsheed Hafiz, learned advocate appearing for the 5th respondent, who would say that the stand of the 1 st respondent is that the petitioner cannot be permitted to function the poultry farm so long as, the abovesaid consent and the D&O license are not renewed by the abovesaid authorities and that this Court need not show any further indulgence in favour of the petitioner and that at best this Court may consider granting further extension of time to a limited period of 15 days, as otherwise, the petitioner is likely to prolong the process, which will be to the detriment of the 5th respondent.