LEENA THANKACHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the functioning of a quarry and metal crusher unit close to their properties. The 5th respondent is the person who is conducting the said units. According to the petitioners, the units are being conducted illegally and in violation of all statutory provisions, causing damage to the environment and ecology. According to the petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 are in the process of considering an application for renewal of the 5th respondent's licence. They have objected to the renewal of licence raising various contentions. Exts.P9 and P10 are the objections submitted by them. They complain that the said objections have not been considered. There is another writ petition, W.P.(C).No.25312 of 2012 pending before this Court in relation to the same subject matter. In view of the pendency of the said writ petition, the third respondent had initially issued Ext.P6 proceedings adjourning the enquiry till the final disposal of the said writ petition. However, without there being change in the circumstances, Ext.P8 has been presently issued informing the petitioner that the enquiry is being proceeded with.

(2.) According to Shri.P.C.Haridas, who appears for the petitioners there is absolutely no justification for proceeding with the enquiry now, more so since there has not been any change of circumstances after the issue of Ext.P6. The petitioners are persons residing close to the units. They are the persons who suffer the deleterious effects of the conduct of the said units. The first respondent has taken note of the fact that the quarries in the area are causing ecological imbalance. Therefore, as per Ext.P7 an expert committee had been constituted to study the adverse impacts caused by the said units on the ecology. A report has been directed to be submitted within a period of two months, the said period would expire only on 29.12.2012. Therefore, the process of granting a renewal of licence should await the result of the expert enquiry that is in progress, it is contended.

(3.) Advocate Anil Babu appears for respondents 2 to 4. The Government Pleader appears for the first respondent. Advocate Shaji Thomas appears for the 5th respondent.