Sri. K. Vasanthkumar vs The Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, The Health Officer (South), Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, The Medical Health Officer, Padmanabanagar Division, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and The Appeal Standing Committee (Health), Administrator, BBMP

V.G. Sabhahit, J.—Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and the learned Counsel for impleading applicants in Misc.W.3247/10.

This appeal is fifed by the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 34556/09 being aggrieved by the order dated. 18.2.2910 passed in Misc.W. No. 1468/10 wherein the learned Single Judge Ms vacated the interim order granted to the writ petitioner.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Pollution Control Board has issued an endorsement stating that the provisions of Air and Water Pollution Act is not applicable to the bakery. However, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the cancellation of license is not based solely upon non-obtaining any permission from the Pollution Control Board but on the complaint received from the residents and hence the order passed by the Court below is justified and does not call for interference. Learned counsel for impleading applicants submits that they are the residents of the area and proper parties to the proceeding.

We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinized the material on record.

The material on record show that the writ petition is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent - Corporation cancelling the license granted to the unit petitioner and the learned Single Judge had granted stay of interim order and the same has been vacated on the application filed by the respondents.

Impleading applicants are not parties to the writ petition and therefore, it is open to them to make an application in the writ petition and pursue the remedy them in this appeal does not arise.

It is true that this Court would not normally interfere with the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge sine this is a intra-Court appeal. However, having regard to the above said facts of the case and the letter issued by the Pollution Control Board and also having regard to the feet that the period of license would expire on 31.3.2010, since the question of cancellation of license is pending consideration in the writ petition, the interim order of stay had been granted. We hold that this is a case wherein the appellant - writ petitioner is entitled to an interim order of stay during (sic) of writ petition. It is open for the respondents to (sic) an application for early hearing of the writ petition and the impleading applicants to file application in the writ petition and pursue the remedy in accordance with law and hence, Misc. W.3247/10 filed for impleading is rejected.

Accordingly, we pass the following

ORDER

The writ appeal is allowed. Order dated 18.2.2010 passed in Misc.W. No. 1468/10 in WP No. 34556/09 vacating the interim order is set aside and the interim order granted is extended till the disposal of the writ petition.