KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL AND THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER Vs. STATE OF KERALA; CORPORATION OF COCHIN AND MRS GEETHA MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter was heard by us on 26.2.2007 and on the request made by the learned Counsel for the third respondent it is posted today. We have heard counsel on either side.

(2.) The writ petition was preferred by the third respondent herein seeking a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent Corporation to immediately issue the consent required for running the two SSI units by name, Jai Hind Metal Industries and Geetha Industries on the basis of the inspection report given based on Exts.P16 and P17 and P20 notices and also issue the consequential reliefs. When the writ petition came up before the learned Single Judge it was stated by the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent that as per the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment the 4th respondent had issued certain directions to give sanction to function the petitioner's unit. Learned Standing Counsel also submitted that since the conditions had already been complied with by the petitioner, the 4th respondent had given consent to function the unit of the petitioner. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board along with its Senior Environmental Engineer filed R.P. No. 904 of 2006 to review that order. However, the learned Single judge dismissed the review petition stating that no ground was made out for reviewing the order already passed and that the order was passed on the submission made by the Standing Counsel. The Pollution Control Board and its Senior Environmental Engineer have filed this writ appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 6th October, 2006.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board submitted that the petitioner was served with Exts.P10 and P11 orders refusing consent to operate the units. The reason for the same have also been narrated in the said orders. It is also stated in those orders that the issue of consent would be reconsidered according to its merits on the petitioner complying with the defects pointed out in those orders. Later the petitioner had sent Exts.P12 and P13 letters stating that she had already rectified the defects and that necessary amounts were also deposited as per Rules. However, the Standing Counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board submitted that later the petitioner was served with Ext.P17 notice of inspection dated 25.8.2006. He also stated that though inspection was conducted, no consent letter was given to the petitioner's units. Still another inspection was conducted on 27.2.2007 by a team officers consisting of Member Secretary and two others and based on the report the Board is yet to pass final orders.