(1.) PETITIONERS are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.312 of 2010 of the Munsiff's Court, Kayamkulam, a suit for prohibitory injunction to restrain the 1st respondent from operating a saw mill and packing case unit for the reason that he has not obtained proper licence and that conduct of the saw mill and packing case unit results in nuisance and health hazards to the petitioners. According to the petitioners the 1st respondent, at the fag end of the trial produced Exts.P3 and P4, consent from the Pollution Control Board and licence from the local authority which according to the petitioners cannot be used for running the saw mill and the packing case unit. The suit was dismissed against which petitioners filed A.S. No.203 of 2012. Since the 1st respondent filed a Caveat, petitioners were not able to get an order of injunction as requested in the application. Now the application is posted on 04.02.2013. In the meantime the 1st respondent is taking steps to start the saw mill and packing case unit. Hence this Original Petition to restrain the 1st respondent from doing as above and issue appropriate direction to the learned District Judge.
(2.) LEARNED counsel invited my attention to Exts.P3 and P4 to contend that the 1st respondent is not entitled to run the saw mill and packing case unit since according to the petitioners, the 1st respondent has not obtained proper licence. Learned counsel also referred to the health hazards in case the saw mill and packing case unit are allowed to run.
(3.) HAVING regard to the circumstances stated and since the question whether injunction prayed for could be granted is a matter which the learned Additional District Judge has to decide at the first instance, I am not inclined to think that I must issue any order of injunction as prayed for in this Original Petition. However, the grievance of the petitioners has to be considered. As submitted by the learned counsel, I.A. No.1007 of 2012 (in A.S. No.203 of 2012) is now posted on 04.02.2013 for hearing.