JAYARAM.K.S Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) According to the petitioner, petitioner has secured all requisite permits and license evident form Exts.P1 to P5. However, Ext.P7 notice is issued by the secretary of the 3rd respondent Panchayat dated 22.3.2016, whereby, it is stated that petitioner cannot function without securing the consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board. It is basically challenging Ext.P7 and seeking other consequential reliefs, this writ petition is filed. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent justifying its stand adopted in Ext.P7. 2. I have heard respective counsel acorss the bar and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

(3.) From Ext.P8 proceeding sheet of the Pollution Control Board, it is evident that petitioner has submitted an application seeking consent to establish, which was considered and found that all the directions issued by the Pollution Control Board was complied with by the petitioner and the application can be considered for issuance of a consent to establish. Since the petitioner has not secured a consent to establish or consent to operate, only. Ext.P7 is issued by the secretary of the 3rd respondent Panchayat. In my considered view, a quietus can be issued to the writ petition by issuing appropriate directions.