LAWS(KER)-2011-2-236

PERUMBAVOOR PLYWOOD MANUFACTURES Vs. ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY

Decided On February 24, 2011
PERUMBAVOOR PLYWOOD MANUFACTURES Appellant
V/S
ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a private limited company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P16 order passed by the second respondent requiring the petitioner to stop functioning of the factory within 24 hours and cautioning him further action in case of his failure to close it down without any further notice. Admittedly, thereafter, the factory in question has been closed down. After the institution of this writ petition, on 11.2.2011 the petitioner has submitted an application for registration to the second respondent. THE learned standing counsel for the second respondent would admit that such application dated 11.2.2011 has been received from the petitioner and it is still pending consideration. According to the third respondent, the petitioner has committed fraud for obtaining the industrial permit. However, it is evident from the counter affidavit itself that the third respondent did not file any petition raising such complaint before any competent authority. THE third respondent is also having a further contention that if the factory in question is given permission to function in the said premises it would cause pollution. In case the third respondent got any such grievance, it will be open to the third respondent to raise his grievances before the appropriate authority competent to look into the said aspects. At the same time, that cannot be a reason for non-consideration of the application submitted by the petitioner for registration.

(2.) IN the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the application submitted by the petitioner on 11.2.2011 for registration. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from today. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the third respondent in taking appropriate action to redress his grievances by resorting to appropriate proceedings.