Vinod Chandran, J.

The State is in appeal against the judgment in a writ petition in which the petitioner, who was running a unit manufacturing mineral water, was permitted to carry on such activity even without an environmental clearance. It was found that the petitioner, for carrying on the activity concerned, did not require an environmental clearance & the order of the District Collector [Exhibit P18] was set aside. It was also held that the remedy of the impleaded respondents, whose grievance was in respect to indiscriminate extraction of water, was independent of the issues decided in the writ petition & was left the remedy to move appropriate authorities to redress their grievances.

2. The parties are referred to as is their status in the writ petition.

3. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company [Exhibit P1], having SSI Registration [Exhibit P2], obtained Exhibit P3 Green Channel Clearance of the District Industries Centre, Palakkad for establishment of a factory carrying on the activity of manufacture of mineral water, which establishment was sanctioned by the Department of Factories & Boilers, by Exhibit P4. The petitioner is said to have been functioning from 1998 & the licence for the current period, issued by the Local Self Government Institution, is produced at Exhibit P5. The petitioner is said to be extracting water from two wells available in the petitioner's property. While Exhibit P8 stop memo was issued by the Wildlife Warden of the Silent Valley Division, Mannarkkad, the Village Officer by Exhibit P9 had affirmed the title of the petitioner over the property & also certified that the same is not Government land or puramboke. The petitioner's contention is that the Wildlife Warden has absolutely no authority to issue a stop memo & there was no restriction in the petitioner carrying on such industry, even if the same is carried on within 10 Kms. radius of the National Park.

4. The petitioner also has a contention that Exhibit P17 report finds the petitioner's industry to have no impact much less any adverse effect on the environment. At the outset, it is to be stated that Exhibit P17 is of no consequence & no reliance can be placed on the same. It is not clear as to what prompted the author of the said report to conduct an inspection and file such a report. Definitely neither the employer of the author nor the Government requested such a report nor is the author's credentials to make such report disclosed. The report is said to have been initiated on the request of one Sri.Vinayan, whose identity is not revealed. The report can only be found to a self-serving one obtained by the petitioner, which cannot at all be relied upon.

5. The Forest Department, however, relies on Exhibit P12 Buffer Zone notification to contend that the authorities of the Forest Department is empowered to restrict the carrying on, of such industry within the Buffer Zone declared, which is in the interest of the National Park & to ensure the protection of environment & to avoid any manner of disturbance of wildlife in the National Park. The respondents claim that, within the Silent Valley National Park; especially the area within which the petitioner is carrying on the industry, is a rain shadow region where there is severe shortage of rainfall. The petitioner's property is said to be just 250 meters adjacent to the Bhavani River, which caters to the wildlife in the area as also the tribal settlement, which has around 30000 inhabitants. The Silent Valley National Park is said to be declared as World Heritage Site. The Government seeks to sustain Exhibit P18 order of the District Collector.

6. Exhibit P18 order of the District Collector, which is impugned herein, has been passed pursuant to a direction in W.P.(C). No.32883 of 2010 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was aggrieved with the proceedings taken by the Wildlife Warden & the District Collector was directed to consider the representation made against the stop memo issue