The petitioner has filed this writ petition complaining about the functioning of a crusher unit without obtaining any valid license from the authorities. The sixth respondent is conducting the crusher unit. The counsel for the sixth respondent submits that he has been granted a consent to operate the unit by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. The counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board also affirms the above submission. According to the sixth respondent, he has already applied for the issue of a license from the Panchayat. The counsel for the Panchayat submits that since what has been applied for is only a renewal of the license, the same is likely to be granted. 2. The counsel for the petitioner points out that, the sixth respondent has been granted permission to operate an 89 HP. For the grant of such license at least one hectare of land is a mandatory requirement.
W.P.(C).No.15686 of 2014 2
3. In view of the above infirmity, the petitioner wants to challenge the consent that has been granted to the sixth respondent. The petitioner therefore submits that the right to challenge the consent that has been granted may be left open.
This writ petition is disposed of recording the submission made on behalf of the counsel for the Pollution Control Board that a consent to operate has already been granted to the sixth respondent and leaving open the rights of the petitioner to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.