Disposed

Robit Chacko v. Binoy @ Bionu and Others

Kerala HC22 Jun 2011WP(C)/10784/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding quarry operations. The Court observed that the first respondent had not obtained the requisite 'Consent to operate' from the Pollution Control Board. Consequently, the Court held that quarry operations can only proceed once valid consent and all other requisite licences are secured.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that quarry operations may proceed only after obtaining 'Consent to operate' from the Pollution Control Board and all other valid requisite licences.

Robit Chacko Vs Binoy @ Bionu and Others — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 10784 of 2011(W)

¶6

--------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

ROBIT CHACKO, S/O.CHACKO, KAVUNKAL HOUSE, PARAYKAPARA, EDAPUZHA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS

¶11

RESPONDENTS: ---------------

¶12

BINOY @ BINU, S/O.KURIACHAN KIZHAKKE PADAVATH HOUSE, NEDUMUNDA, AARALAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶13

AYYANKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE SECRETARY, AYYANKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.

¶16

THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KANNUR.

¶17

THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, KANNUR.

¶18

THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KANNUR.

¶19

WP(C).No. 10784 of 2011(W)

¶20

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARIKOTTAKARI POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶21

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶22

R1 BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR

¶23

R2 AND R3 BY SRI.K.C.A.MUNEER

¶24

R5 BY ADV. MR. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

WP(C).No. 10784 of 2011(W)

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXT.P1	:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P1(A)	:	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD
EXT.P2	:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRPESENTATION SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2(A)	:	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD
EXT.P3	:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FOREST MINISTER.
EXT.P3(A)	:	TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD
EXT.P4	:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶31

EXT. R1(a)	:	TRUE COPY OF A NEWS ITEM APPEARED ON 09.05.2009 IN SUDHINAM DAILY, KANNUR.
EXT.R1(b)	:	TRUE COPY OF QUARRYING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST.
EXT.R1(c)	:	TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 22.11.2010 FILED BY THIS DEPONENT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.R1(d)	:	TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF THE TAHSLDAR DATED 3.6.2011 SUBMITTED TO THE RDO.
EXT.R1(e)	:	TRUE COPY OF NOC DATED 1.2.2011 OF THE ASST. DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES.
EXT.R1(f)	:	TRUE COPY OF NOC ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, KANNUR
EXT.R1(g)	:	TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT.
EXT.R1(h)	:	TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CER TIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYAMKUNNU ON 10.5.2011
EXT.R1(i)	:	TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT ISSUED ON 3.5.2011.

¶32

/true copy/

¶33

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶34

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 10784 OF 2011

¶36

Dated this the 22^nd June , 2011

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to

¶39

declare that the first respondent cannot conduct quarrying operation without obtaining valid licence from the concerned authorities and to direct the respondents 2 to 9 to take immediate and effective action to stop the functioning of the granite quarry in the property comprised in R.S.No. 1293 of Sub registrar Office, Uliyil.

¶40

The learned standing Counsel for the Pollution control Board submits with reference to the contents of the statement filed before this Court that an inspection was conducted on 20.04.2011 when it was revealed that the nearest residence from the boundary of 'quarry operation' area is 120 metres away and another residence is situated at 130 metres away. It is pointed out that, at the time of inspection, the quarry was not functioning. The learned Standing counsel further submits that

¶41

the first respondent has not obtained the 'Consent to operate' from the Pollution Control Board and that operation of the quarry

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 10784 OF 2011

¶44

can be pursued only on obtaining the 'Consent to operate'.

¶45

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties as

¶46

well.

¶47

In view of the position brought out on record, the fact remains that the first respondent is yet to obtain the 'Consent to operate' the quarry.

¶48

In the said circumstance, the writ petition is disposed of making it clear that the first respondent can pursue operation in the quarry only subject to obtaining the 'Consent to operate' from the respondent Board and on the basis of all valid and requisite licences enabling the first respondent to conduct the quarrying operation. If any violation is noted, it is for the concerned authorities to take appropriate action against the first respondent for remedying the situation.

¶49

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶50

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 10784 OF 2011

¶52

Robit Chacko v. Binoy @ Bionu and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Robit Chacko v. Binoy @ Bionu and Others

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

K.F.Noushad Vs the Dist. Collector, Alappuzha and Othes

Sahida Vs the District Collector

A.K.Moideen Kutty and Another Vs the Manager, Canara Bank and Others

The Manager, State Bank of Mysore Vs Saji P.Mathew

M.G.Kuttappan Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam & Ors.

Dr.E.Anzarudeen Vs State of Kerala