K.G.Omanakuttan vs Kumaly Grama Panchayath
2023 Latest Caselaw 6635 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
 TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1945
                        WP(C) NO. 11979 OF 2014
PETITIONER/S:

            K.G.OMANAKUTTAN, AGED 35 YEARS
            S/O.K.GOPALAN, KEZHEKEKURIYIDATH HOUSE,
            AMARAVATHY P.O., KUMALY, IDUKKI, NOW RESIDING AT
            THAYPARAMBIL THARAYIL, CHUNGAM, KOTTAYAM.

               BY ADV SRI.M.VIVEK



RESPONDENT/S:

    1          KUMALY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
               REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KUMALY GRAMA
               PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KUMALY, IDUKKI-685569.

    2          THE ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER
               KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT
               OFFICE, IDUKKI-685584.

    3          DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER HEALTH
               OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
               IDUKKI-685569.

    4          AYUSH ENGINEERING WORKS
               REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, JOSY JOSE,
               AMARAVATHY (P.O.), KUMALY-685509.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
               GOVERNMENT PLEADER - SRI.T.JAYAN


        THIS     WRIT   PETITION     (CIVIL)    HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION       ON   13.06.2023,     THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 11979 OF 2014

                                     ..2..



                                 JUDGMENT

The main grievance in this writ petition is

regarding the functioning of a workshop by the fourth

respondent, which allegedly causes pollution as well

as heavy noise in the area. According to the

petitioner, he is suffering from various ailments and

due to the pollution, his sickness has become worse.

2. Today, when the case is taken up, there is

no representation for the petitioner. This writ

petition was filed in the year 2014. By passage of

time, the grievance of the petitioner might have been

redressed and the petitioner might have lost interest

in prosecuting the matter.

Therefore, the writ petition is closed with

liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned

authorities, if any further grievance subsists.

Sd/-

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

JUDGE bka/-