Francis v. District Collector & Others
Case brief
What is this about?
The court considered whether the writ petition became infructuous after respondents assured the court that no further mining activities would be conducted following a prior police protection order. Upon recording this submission, the court closed the petition as infructuous.
What did the court decide?
The writ petition was treated as infructuous and closed as no further mining activities would be conducted.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2007 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1928
WP(C).No. 13008 of 2006(W) --------------------------
PETITIONER:
FRANCIS NJALIL, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS, NJALIL HOUSE, NEELESWARAM P.O., VIA. KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN
RESPONDENTS:
- 1.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
- 2.THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER, FORT KOCHI.
- 3.THE KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALADY.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition has become infructuous after the police protection order ensured removal of mud from the property.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to conduct further mining activities.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
FRANCIS NJALIL
- respondent
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM
- respondent
THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER, FORT KOCHI
- respondent
THE KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALADY
- respondent
TOMY
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court