Kerala High Court
Saramma Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 5 June, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 2171 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SARAMMA THOMAS
AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. LATE THOMAS, KOORAN
THAZHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE,
KARUKUTTY P.O., MAMBRA-683 576.
BY ADVS.
SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR
SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL
SMT.S.SIBHA
SHRI.ANOOP SEBASTIAN
SMT.DEEPA VALENTINE LESLIE
SHRI.VENKETESH BOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL
SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 KERALA STATE SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DIRECTORATE OF
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
3 GENERAL MANAGER,
DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KUNNUMPURAM - CIVIL STATION
ROAD, VAZHAKKALA, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.
4 PARAKKADAV PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KURUMASSERY P.O.,
MOOZHIKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 579.
5 THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KADAVANTHARA, MIG
AND HIG COLONY, GANDHI NAGAR, ELAMKULAM, KERALA-682 020.
6 SHINY AZEEZ,
WP(C) NO.2171 OF 2021
2
EDANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VATTAKKATTUPADY,
PERUMBAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, KERALA-683 542.
BY ADVS.
SRI. M. RAJEEVAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI. T. NAVEEN, SC
SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR
SRI. N.K.SUBRAMANIAN -R6
SRI. N.C.MOHANAN
SRI. ABRAHAM MATHAN
SRI. ATHUL TOM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.2171 OF 2021
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.2171 of 2021
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 05th day of June, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following
prayers:
"i) Issue a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ or
direction directing the 3rd respondent Panchayath to
call for the records leading up to the sanction
granted by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 6th
respondent as evident from Exhibit P1 and quash
the same.
ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate
direction directing the 3rd respondent Panchayath
to act upon Exhibit Pl in accordance with law
forthwith.
iii) Grant such other and incidental reliefs as this
Honourable Court may deem just and necessary on
WP(C) NO.2171 OF 2021
the facts and circumstances of this case;
And
iv) Allow this writ petition (civil) with costs to the
petitioner."SIC
2. When this writ petition came up for
consideration on 02.11.2021, this Court passed the
following order:
"Admit. In view of the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the 3rd respondent and the documents
produced along with the writ petition, there will be an
interim direction to the respondents to see that the
unit of the 6th respondent does not function without
all due clearance and permissions as required under
law."
3. Thereafter, this Court passed an order on
14.12.2021, which is also extracted hereunder:
The writ petition has been filed against
starting of the plywood factory by the 6th
respondent. This Court had on 02.11.2021 directed
the respondents to see that the unit of the 6th
WP(C) NO.2171 OF 2021
respondent does not function without all due
clearances and permissions as required under law.
The 6th respondent thereafter filed a petition
seeking to vacate the interim order and also
submitted that at present the unit is not
functioning.
2. The 6th respondent has filed I.A. Nos.
3 & 4 of 2021. In 1.A.No.3 of 2021, the prayer is for
permitting production of Exts.R6(h) and R6(i).
Ext.R6(h) is a consent from the Pollution Control
Board Issued on 30.11.2021 and Ext.R6(i) is an
acknowledgment certificate dated 29.11.2021
issued under the Kerala Micro Small Medium
Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019. 1.A.No. 3 of
2021 is allowed.
3. In I.A.No.4 of 2021, the 6th respondent
has sought for a direction to the respondents 1 to 5
to permit them to shift the machineries and
materials to the new premises where they intend to
start the unit. The interim order issued by this
Court does not in any way prohibit such shifting of
the premises since the writ petition itself concerns
with starting of the unit in the premises objected to
by the writ petitioner. In the above circumstances,
respondents 1 to 5 are directed to permit the
petitioner to shift the machineries and materials to
the new premises."
WP(C) NO.2171 OF 2021
4. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the
6th respondent submitted that the Factory is already
shifted to the new premises. If that be the case, the
prayers in this writ petition are infructuous.
Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed as
infructuous.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE
