Disposed

Raju Cyriac v. the Dist.Collector

Kerala HC15 Dec 2011WP(C)/2583/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought directions to dispose of a mining revenue application and challenged a Grama Panchayat's resolution refusing a NOC. The court held that no direct communication of rejection was received by the petitioner. It directed the Collector to issue a copy of the rejection order to the petitioner and reserved liberty to challenge the Panchayat resolution.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to be issued a copy of the Collector's rejection order (Ext.R2(f)) within two weeks; liberty to challenge the Panchayat resolution was reserved.

Raju Cyriac Vs the Dist.Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2011 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 2583 of 2011(W)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S) :

¶8

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

¶9

RAJU CYRIAC, KUZHIKKATTIL HOUSE, VAYALA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶14

2. THE KIDANGOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KIDANGOOR P.O., PIN-686572, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.

¶15

3. THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶16

R1 & R3 BY SMT.RANI DIOTHEMA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

AMV

¶19

WPC NO.2583 OF 2011 (W)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶22

P1.	:	COPY OF THE CONSENT GIVEN IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
P2.	:	COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD: 27.02.2010.
P3.	:	COPY OF THE REPORT NO.B5/2066/10 DTD: 17.04.2010.
P4.	:	COPY OF THE REPORT NO.1187/DOY/ML/2010 DTD:28.07.2010.
P5.	:	COPY OF THE REPORT NO.PCB/KTM/2645/2002 DTD: 28.07.2010 BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
P6.	:	COPY OF THE REPORT NO.A5-1551/03 DTD: 27.07.2010 BY THE WATER AUTHORITY.
P7.	:	COPY OF THE REPORT NBO.GWK/1162/10 DTD: 16.09.2010 BY THE GROUND WATER DEPT.
P8.	:	COPY OF THE REPORT DTD: 03.07.2010 OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA.
P9.	:	COPY OF THE RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT ON 04.08.2010.
P10.	:	COPY OF THE RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT ON 13.12.2010.
RESP	ONDE	NTS' EXHIBITS :

¶23

R2(A)	: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD: 23.10.2001 OF THE GEOLOGIST, KOTTAYAM.
R2(B)	: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD: 12.04.2002 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
R2(C)	: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD: 28.02.2006 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
R2(D)	: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD: 25.11.2010.
R2(E)	: COPY OF THE MINUTES DTD: 01.11.2009.
R2(F)	: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD: 10.11.2010 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

AMV

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶28

W.P.(C) No.2583 of 2011

¶29

Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2011

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The petitioner is seeking direction to the 1^st respondent to dispose of Ext.P2 request on the basis of the reports obtained from various experts. Inter alia the petitioner is seeking direction to the 2^nd respondent Grama Panchayat to review the decision taken as per Ext.P10.

¶32

The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 request to the 1^st respondent seeking permission for mining sand from 11 Ares of property, out of a total extent of 81 Ares 26 Sq.Mtrs with respect to which the petitioner had obtained consent from the land owners as evidenced from Ext.P1. It is evident that the 1^st respondent had called for reports of various authorities and Ext.P3 to P8 are the reports received from authorities like Tahsildar, Geologists, Pollution Control Board, Water Authority, Ground Water

¶33

W.P.(C).2583/11-W

¶34

-2-

¶35

Department and RDO. Since the 1^st respondent has not taken any decision on the application, inspite of receipt of such reports, the petitioner is seeking direction for an early disposal of Ext.P2 request. The petitioner is also challenging the decision taken under Ext.P10 by the 2^nd respondent Grama Panchayat refusing to issue NOC for mining of sand from the land in question.

¶36

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent it is stated that the District Collector had conducted a direct site inspection, apart from obtaining reports from various authorities. Since it is revealed that the land is surrounded by houses one side and by cultivating land on the other side, and since the Meenachil River is situated only 50 Metres away from the site, permission sought for cannot be granted, because any further excavation in the area will cause environmental imbalance. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no communication was received by the petitioner with respect to any rejection of the application. But it is noticed that the

¶37

W.P.(C).2583/11-W

¶38

-3-

¶39

3^rd respondent had produced Ext.R2(f) along with their counter affidavit which is a communication issued by the 1^st respondent dt. 10.11.2010 addressed to the petitioner, intimating that the application in question was rejected. However, it is asserted by the learned counsel for petitioner that no such communication was received by the petitioner.

¶40

With respect to challenge against Ext.P10 resolution adopted by the 2^nd respondent Panchayat, argument was raised by the petitioner that 'no objection' from the Panchayat is not required for obtaining mining permit. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner by Ext.P10, he can resort to the statutory remedy provided under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.

¶41

Under the above mentioned circumstances I am of

¶42

the view that the writ petition can be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the decision taken by the 1^st respondent rejecting Ext.P2 application or to seek review by approaching the 1^st respondent himself. The 1^st respondent is directed to issue a copy of Ext.R2(f) decision

¶43

W.P.(C).2583/11-W

¶44

-4-

¶45

to the petitioner for facilitating him to seek appropriate relief, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. So also liberty of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P10 in appropriate proceedings as per law will stand reserved.

¶46

The writ petition is disposed of with the above

¶47

observations.

¶48

(Sd/-)

¶49

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶50

okb

¶51

True copy

¶52

P.A to Judge

Raju Cyriac v. the Dist.Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Cyriac v. the 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

Reghu.R. Vs State of Kerala

Abdulla Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sherif Vs Revenue Divisional Officer,Tirur

Sreehari.M. Vs the Mahatma Gandhi University and Ors.

Jose Joseph Vakayil Vs Union of India and Others

Hindustan Cocacola Beverages Pvt.Ltd Vs Director of Industries & Commerce