Dismissed

A.M.Chakochan v. Abbas

Kerala HC19 Nov 2010WA/926/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition as not pressed after the original petitioner expressed no interest in prosecution. The Court disposed of the appeal regarding the discontinuance of an interim order on quarrying and warned the state to act against alleged illegal quarrying on government land.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as not pressed; the appeal regarding the stay order was disposed of.

A.M.Chakochan Vs Abbas — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶4

WA.No. 926 of 2010

¶5

-------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.11392/2010 Dated 31/05/2010

¶6

APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT:

¶7

¶8

A.M.CHACKOCHAN, AGED 48 YEARS,

¶9

S/O.MATHAI, PUTHUSSERIL HOUSE, ISWARYA GRANITES, ELAVINMOODU, KARALIKONAM, ELAMADU, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE

¶11

SRI.VIJAYA MOHAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

ABBAS.E., FATHIMA MANZIL, ELAVINMOODU, KARALIKONAM, ELAMADU, KOTTARAKARA.

¶15

RAHEEDHA ABBAS, W/O.ABBAS.E., EALVINMOODU, KARALIKONAM, ELAMADU, KOTTARAKARA.

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKARA.

¶18

THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM.

¶19

THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, ALTHARAMUKKU, KOLLAM.

¶20

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH

¶21

R3 TO R5 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA. R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC,POLL.C.BOARD.

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 11392 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

J.Chelameswar, CJ. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J .

¶24

¶25

W.A.No. 926 OF 2010 AND

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 11392 OF 2010

¶27

- - - - Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2010

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

J.Chelameswar, CJ.

¶30

This is an appeal arising out of W.P.(C) No. 11392 of 2010 by the respondents therein.

¶31

The writ petition was filed complaining that the

¶32

appellant herein is carrying on quarrying operation in the various survey numbers at Elamadu Village in Kottarakkara Taluk. The prayer in the writ petition were as follows:

¶33

“(a) issue a writ or order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take immediate action against the illegal quarrying activities and the functioning of the crusher unit of the 5^th respondent at Elavinmoodu in Elamadu Village in Kottarakkara Taluk and take necessary penal action against the 5^th respondent;

¶34

(b) issue a writ or order or direction directing the 5^th respondent not o conduct illegal and unauthorized quarrying activities in Block No.27in survey Nos.115, 116, 117, 118, 121, 122, 126, 127, 264, 265 and 266 in Elamadu Village andto stop the functioning of the crusher unit;”

¶35

Along with the writ petition the petitioner also prayed for an

¶36

W.A.No. 926 OF 2010 and W.P.(C) No. 11392 OF 2010

¶37

-:2:-

¶38

interim order in the following terms:

¶39

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit and writ petition it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the 5^th respondent to stop the entire quarrying operations and as well as the functioning of the crusher unit within Sy.Nos.115, 116, 117, 118, 121, 122, 126 127, 264, 265 and 266 in Elamadu Village in Kottarakkara Taluk, till the disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice.”

¶40

By an order dated 31.05.2010 a learned Single Judge of this Court granted an interim order and therefore the present appeal came to be filed by the respondent therein. At the time of admission of the appeal, there was an interim order dated 08.06.2010 by a Division Bench of this Court keeping in abeyance the abovementioned interim order for a period of two weeks. It appears that subsequently the interim order was lapsed and therefore an application came to be filed as I.A.No.564 of 2010 seeking revival of the interim order granted on 08.06.2010.

¶41

On 23.07.2010, when the matter was taken up a representation was made on behalf of the writ petitioner that the

¶42

W.A.No. 926 OF 2010 and W.P.(C) No. 11392 OF 2010

¶43

-:3:-

¶44

writ petitioner was not interested to prosecute the writ petition any further. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and for the reasons recorded on that date, this Court declined to continue the interim order and in view of the un-interest of the petitioner to prosecute the matter, we thought it fit to continue the writ petition as suo motu taken up writ petition.

¶45

Aggrieved by the discontinuance of the interim order, the appellant herein carried the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. Nos.21887 and 21888 of 2010. However, eventually opted not to press the said S.L.P., the S.L.P. was dismissed as withdrawn by an order by the Supreme Court dated 26.10.2010. Pursuant to the directions dated 23.06.2010 the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam filed a report before this Court. The relevant portion reads as follows:

¶46

“8. It is submitted that the appellant is holding a crusher unit in Sy.Nos.111, 123/3 and 122/3 as a partnership business with Nixon John, Tinson John(sons of Chackochan), Molly Chackochan etc. for which he has obtained licence/permission from Panchayat, Pollution Control Board, Fire & Rescue Department, Inspector of Factories & Boilers, etc.

¶47

W.A.No. 926 OF 2010 and W.P.(C) No. 11392 OF 2010

¶48

-:4:-

¶49

It submitted that for the quarrying purpose the 5^th respondent had obtained valid permit from the Geology Department for the following survey numbers vide permit No.referred to each.

¶50

It submitted that though the permit is in the name of Sri.Chackochan, he has not possessed any explosive licence. He had produced an explosive licence issued on 29.07.2010 by the Controller of Explosives for possession for use of explosives in the name of this son Tinson John, who is a partner of Aiswarya Granites. The appellant is conducting quarrying operations in sarkar land in Sy. No.127/6, 127/7, 263/1, 109/3 for which no permit has been obtained, and that the Tahsildar, Kottarakkara has initiated action under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act against the appellant. ”

¶51

In view of the said report, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ appeal and dismiss the writ petition as not pressed. However, we place it on record that in view of the allegation contained in the abovementioned report dated 10.08.2010 that, the appellant is carrying on quarrying operation in Government land in Survey No.127/6, 127/7, 263/1 and 109/3, it is open to the State to take such appropriate steps

¶52

W.A.No. 926 OF 2010 and W.P.(C) No. 11392 OF 2010

¶53

-:5:-

¶54

as the State deems appropriate in the circumstances and in accordance with law, to prevent any illegal quarrying operation

¶55

by the appellant.

¶56

J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice.

¶57

P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge.

¶58

ttb

A.M.Chakochan v. Abbas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.M.Chakochan v. Abbas

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

Bank of India, Trichur Branch Vs Baby Ranjith

Biju.v Vs Shajahan.a

V.Rajeev Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

D.G.Sharon Das Vs R.Vijayakumar, Director, Animal Husbandr

A.Jose Vs State of Kerala

Rosily Varghese Vs State Commissioner and Others