C.L.Anto vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 236 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
  TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 4244 OF 2012
PETITIONER:

            C.L.ANTO
            AGED 58 YEARS
            CHIEF PROMOTER, NATIONAL ENERGY AND WASTE
            MANAGEMENT MUTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
            (KERALA)LTD.,(NEWSCO), (PROPOSED), INDU VILLA,
            I.Q.ROAD, CHALAKUDY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-
            680307.
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
            SRI.T.K.BIJU MANJINIKARA

RESPONDENTS:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
            DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT
            SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
    2       SUCHITWA MISSION
            LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
            KERALA, PANAVILA JUNCTION, THYCAUD P.O.,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014, REPRESENTED BY ITS
            EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
            BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER

OTHER PRESENT:

            SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   11.01.2022,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).No.4244/2012

                                      2




                    P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                     --------------------------------
                     W.P.(C).No.4244 of 2012
              ----------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 11th day of January, 2022


                                JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P8 representation, after conducting necessary scientific study on the matter, forthwith. ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the operation and all further proceedings in pursuance to Exts.P6 and P7.

iii. Issue such other writ, order or direction which may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to

Ext.P4 notification, the petitioner submitted a project report

on scientific management and disposal of municipal wastes

and the society of which petitioner the Chief Promoter was

selected by the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P5 proceedings.

During the course of various discussions and demonstrations, W.P.(C).No.4244/2012

it is the case of the petitioner that he brought to the notice of

the respondents that for the scientific management of solid

waste treatment plant, in economically viable manner, by

generating electricity from it, to meet the day to day expenses

for operating the plant, it is necessary that minimum quantity

of solid waste must be 200 tone per day and 25-35 tones

wastes cannot be scientifically disposed, without casting the

burden upon the public exchequer. It is also the case of the

petitioner that near zero discharge system can be achieved,

only if the total quantity of wastes is more than 200 tones.

The petitioner submitted his study reports to the Government

as well as to the 2nd respondent and it is the case of the

petitioner that they were satisfied about the suggestions of the

petitioner. But, while publishing Ext.P6 notice, the 2 nd

respondent again invited tenders for the disposal of 25-35

tones of municipal wastes. Hence the petitioner submitted

Ext.P8 representation before the 2 nd respondent. When there

is no response, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard.

4. When this writ petition came up for consideration,

the learned Government Pleader takes me through paragraph W.P.(C).No.4244/2012

7 of the counter affidavit in which it is stated that Ext.P8 was

received in the office concerned only on 23.02.2012 and the

writ petition was filed only on 20.02.2012. Therefore no

chance was given for filing a reply.

5. From the above statement it is clear that Ext.P8 is

pending before the 2nd respondent. Therefore, there can be a

direction to consider Ext.P8 if it is not already disposed.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the

2nd respondent to consider Ext.P8 and pass appropriate orders

in it, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment, if the same is not already disposed.

sd/-

                                        P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV                                             JUDGE
 W.P.(C).No.4244/2012





                  APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4244/2012

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1             COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED

02.02.2012 OF THE CHAIRMAN OF MAILHEM ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 23.12.2011 OF SPECIAL OFFICER IN CHARGE OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OF PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 15.10.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 19.10.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 20.01.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 20.01.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.1958/C2/2012/SM DATED 20.1.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.2.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT