High Court of KeralaWP(C)/21429/2014closed

K.V. Viswambaran v. Kerala State Pollution Control Board

2015-01-143 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/24TH POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 21429 of 2014 (C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- K.V. VISWAMBHARAN, SAYA VILLA, KOONAMTHAI, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI- 682 024.

BY ADVS.SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE RESPONDENTS:

-------------------------

1. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE-1, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM KOCHI - 682 020.

2. THE KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, KIALAMASSERY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KALAMASSERY P.O, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 033.

3. M/S.R.F.MOBIKES(INDIA) PVT.LTD., 28/462B, CHILTON TOWER, KOONAMTHAI, EDAPPALLY PO, KOCHI - 682 024.

4. K.S.RAJEEV, S/O.LATE SIDHARTHAN, KAITHAKKATTU HOUSE, KOONAMTHAI, P.O EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 024.

5. PEETHAMBARAN.M.N S/O. LATE NANU, MATHUKAPPILLIL HOUSE, KOONAMTHAI, EDAPPALLY PO, KOCHI - 682 024.

R1 BY ADV. SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER, SC R3 BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.SSIDDHARTH KRISHNAN R5 BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MJL

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

--------------------------- W.P.(C)No.21429 of 2014 ------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2015

JUDGMENT

Grievance of the petitioner was with respect to the functioning of a 'Two Wheeler Service Station' in a property adjacent to his residence, which was allegedly run on an illegal manner by respondent No.3 in a building owned by the 4th respondent.

2. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the service station had already been shifted from the premises and that they are not intending to continue the said business in the said premises.

3. The above submission is recorded and the writ petition is closed as infructuous in view of the statement made as above.

Sd/-C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE MJL