Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24269
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
AMMINI KUTTY – Appellant
Versus
PERUMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 878 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR, SHRI.RENOY VINCENT, SHRI.ARUN ROY, SMT.HELEN P.A., SRI.SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI, SMT.ALEESHA SHEREEF
For the Respondents: DR.V.N.SANKARJEE, SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED, SHRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN, SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI, SRI.M.M.VINOD, SMT.M.SUSEELA, SMT.KEERTHI B. CHANDRAN, SHRI.VIJAYAN PILLAI P.K., SRI.C.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, SHRI.NITHEESH.M, SMT.SUKANYA S.
The enforcement of environmental regulations and closure orders is crucial for compliance with licensing requirements, and such petitions may be rendered moot by compliance actions.
Headnote:The case concerns WP
(C) No. 878 of 2023, where the petitioner sought directions against the 1st to 4th respondents for enforcement of the closure notice against the 5th respondent's unit operating without a consent/license. The Court found that the relevant notices (Ext P4 and P7) required the 5th respondent to cease operations, leading to an interim order. Given the subsequent action, the writ petition was deemed infructuous. The Court ruled that from prior submissions, the petition would stand closed as infructuous.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. functioning without consent/license (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. writ petition closed as infructuous (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent, as well as the learned Government Pleader for the State
2. On 06.02.2023, this Court issued the following interim order, taking into account the complaint raised by the petitioner as regards the functioning of the unit by the
5th respondent herein:
“Petitioner approached this Court seeking a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to implement direction contained in Ext P4 notice issued by respondent No.3. Ext P4 is a notice directing the 5th respondent to close down the unit which has been running without obtaining necessary consent/license from the authorities concerned. Ext P7 is the communication issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner intimating that the said unit run by the 5th respondent is without any license from the Panchayath.
2. Therefore there will be an interim order directing the 5th respondent not to function the said unit without obtaining necessary consent/license from the authorities concerned. Respondents to see that Ext P4 and P7 are strictly implemented. 5th respondent seeks to file counter affidavit. Post after a month.”
3. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent states that the unit itself has been shifted subsequently.
In view of the afore submissions, this writ petition would stand closed as infructuous.
