Disposed

N.U.Sabu v. Dist.Collector

Kerala HC23 Oct 2008WP(C)/7478/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition against the District Collector and the Grama Panchayat seeking direction to stop the 3rd respondent from conducting unlicensed quarrying operations. The Court held the quarrying illegal after review of the Panchayat's counter affidavit and directed appropriate steps to be taken to stop the operation with police assistance. The writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 and 2 directed to take steps to ensure 3rd respondent stops quarrying. D.S.P. directed to assist 2nd respondent in enforcing the stop memo.

N.U.Sabu Vs Dist.Collector — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 7478 of 2005(M)

PETITIONER(S):

N.U.SABU S/O. ULAHANNAN, NADUKKUDIPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, SOUTH MARADY, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.

¶10

PALLYAN KUNJAPPAN, PARAYIL, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, SOUTH MARADI, MARADI VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.

¶11

MANOJ S/O. VARGHESE, PONTHAVANAL, SOUTH MARADI, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

¶15

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD.

¶16

MARADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MARADY, MUVATUPUZHA TALUK.

¶17

THANKACHAN S/O. PATHROSE, KANNOKKATTU HOUSE, MARADY KARA, MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.

¶18

ADV. SRI.T.K.RAJESHKUMAR FOR R3

¶19

SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY FOR R2

¶20

GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 7478/2005.

¶23

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DT. 1-2-2005. EXT.P2 DO. DT. 1-2-2005.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶25

EXT.R2(a) NOTICE DT. 10-2-2005. EXT.R2(b) NOTICE DT. 21-2-2005. EXT.R2(c) LETTER DT. 11-2-2005. EXT.R2(d) LETTER DT. 11-2-2005.

[TRUE COPY]

P.S TO JUDGE.

S. Siri Jagan, J.

W. P (C) No. 7478 of 2005

¶30

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶31

Dated this, the 23^rd October, 2008.

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Petitioners have filed this writ petition complaining that the 3^rd respondent is conducting quarrying operations in 1 acre and 30 cents of land within the jurisdiction of the 2^nd respondent-Panchayat without obtaining a licence. The petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs:

¶34

“i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to take immediate and effective action against the illegal storage and using of explosives by the 3^rd respondent/

¶35

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to take immediate measures to stop the illegal quarrying operation in the property of the 3^rd respondent i.e. nearly one acre 30 cents in Sy. Nos. 1066/2A and 1066/2B of Marady village, Muvattupuzha Taluk.”

¶36

The 2^nd respondent-Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit stating that the 3^rd respondent has not obtained any licence for quarrying and therefore a show cause notice Ext. R2(a) and a stop memo Ext. R2(b) have been issued to the 3^rd respondent. Since the 3^rd respondent did not comply with the same, Ext. R2(c) letter has been issued to the 1^st respondent informing about the illegal activities of the 3^rd respondent. A letter Ext. R2(d) was also issued to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Muvattupuzha seeking police assistance to enforce the stop memo issued against the 3^rd respondent. However, it is stated in the counter affidavit that in spite of these efforts, the 3^rd respondent is continuing illegal quarrying operation.

¶37

The 3^rd respondent has not filed any counter affidavit before this Court . None appears for the 3^rd respondent also to oppose the writ petition. In view of the counter affidavit, it is abundantly clear that the 3^rd respondent cannot continue the quarrying operations. Accordingly, respondents 1 and 2 shall take appropriate steps to see

¶38

W.P.C. No. 7478/2005.

¶39

-: 2 :-

¶40

that the 3^rd respondent does not continue quarrying operations in the land in question. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Muvattupuzha shall see that appropriate assistance is given to the 2^nd respondent to see that the 3^rd respondent does not continue with the quarrying operations.

¶41

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶42

S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶43

Tds/

N.U.Sabu v. Dist.Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.U.Sabu v. Dist.Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Christopher Vs Jose Cherian and Others

T.v.Abdul Khader Vs the Fact

M/S.Raja Transports Vs Union of India

Union of India Vs M/S. Allure Impex, Mumbai

Adat Grama Panchayath Vs the State of Kerala

Vasantha Antharjanam Vs the District Collector