M A ALEXANDER Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of a wire cut brick manufacturing unit by the 5th respondent. THE petitioner alleges that the unit is being conducted by the 5th respondent without obtaining consent from the Pollution Control Board and also without obtaining licence from the 4th respondent Kadapara Panchayat. THE unit according to the petitioner is generating severe pollution problems in the locality. THE Pollution Control Board as well as the 4th respondent Panchayat have issued show cause notices to the 5th respondent. Ext.P1 is the notice issued by the Pollution Control Board and Ext.P2 is the notice issued by the Panchayat. In Ext.P2 the 5th respondent is strictly directed to stop the functioning of the unit before consent is obtained form the Pollution Control Board. In gross violation of Ext.P2, the 5th respondent continued with the operation of the unit. THErefore, the Panchayat has issued request(Ext.P3) to the 2nd respondent - Sub Inspector of Police to do whatever necessary for stopping the functioning of the 5th respondent unit. Ext.P4 notice has been subsequently issued in this connection to the 5th respondent by the Panchayat. THEreafter, Ext.P5, a further order restraining the function of the unit is also isused by the Panchayat. Notwithstanding all the above, the 5th respondent continued with the operation of the unit. THE petitioner filed a complaint before the police complaining that there is no action taken by respondents 1 and 2 on Ext.P6. This writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions to respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Superintendent of Police and Sub Inspector of Police) . All the respondents have been served by Special Messenger. THE 5th respondent has not entered appearance. THE learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board and the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat virtually support the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner. THE averments stands established by non traverse. I do not find any reason as to why the writ petition should not be allowed. THE writ petition will stand allowed by passing the following directions: THE respondents 1 and 2 ( Superintendent of Police and Sub Inspector of Police) will consider Ext.P6 and P3 and take necessary action to ensure that the 5th respondent stops the functioning of his wire cut brick manufacturing unit till such time as he obtains a consent from the 3rd respondent Pollution Control Board. Needful will be done by the respondents 1 and 2 at their earliest and at any rate within three days of receiving copy of this judgment.