Dismissed

Kallulla Parambath Kelappan v. the District Collector,Kozhikode and Ors.

Kerala HC13 Dec 2011WP(C)/6286/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging an order by the Second Respondent disposing of a complaint about quarry operations. The Court held that the complaint was not a statutory appeal, natural justice requirements were not violated as site inspection was unnecessary, and the petitioner must seek relief through statutory appeals or common law remedies if permissions were inv

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the order disposing of the complaint was dismissed as unsustainable.

Kallulla Parambath Kelappan Vs the District… — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WPC.No. 6286 of 2011 (I)

¶6

=================

¶7

L.9579/2010 of SUB DVL.MAGISTRATE,KOZHIKODE

¶8

PETITIONER(S)

¶9

==========

¶10

KALLULLA PARAMBATH KELAPPAN ,AGED 60 YEARS S/O.KADUNGAWAN(LATE), POOTHARA NIDUMANNOOR PO., KAKKATTIL VIA VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE 673 507.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUDHISH

¶12

SMT.M.MANJU SRI.K.R.RANJITH

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

===========

¶15

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATIOIN, KOZHIKODE 673 020.

¶16

2. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION KOZHIKODE 673 020.

¶17

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE 673 020.

¶18

4. THE TAHSILDAR, VADAKARA TALUK, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE 673 001.

¶19

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KAYAKKODY VILLAGE, KAKKATTIL VIA, VADAKARA TALUK KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 507.

¶20

6. KAYAKKODI PANCHAYAT,REP.BY THE SECRETARY, NARIPPATTA PO., KAKKATTIL VIA, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 507.

¶21

7. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,MINING AND GEOLOGY CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE 673 507.

¶22

8. V.A.C.IBRAHIM, VAZHAYIL VEEDU, AAKKAL PO., KAVILUMPARA, PIN 673 513.

¶23

svs

¶24

...........2/-....

¶25

...2...

¶26

WPC. NO.6286/2011

¶27

9. JIJESH KUMAR, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN KULAMULLA KUNIYIL VEEDU, MOKERI PO., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 516.

¶28

10. SHABEER.V.P.FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN VENGOLI POYIL VEEDU, NITTOOR PO., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 507.

¶29

11. MUNEER.P.M,FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, PUTHUKUDY MEETHAL VEEDU, PALERI PO., KUTTIADY VIA, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE 673 508.

¶30

12. ASOKAN.I.T,FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN KUMULUMMAL HOUSE, CHEEKKONNU PO., VATAKARA, TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 507.

¶31

13. K.ANDRU,FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN , KODIYANGOTH HOUSE,CHELAKKAD PO., VATAKARA TALUK,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN 673 506.

¶32

14. ASOKAN.C.P, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, CHAMBHILORA PARAYULLA PARAMBATH HOUSE CHEEKKONNU PO., VATAKAR,KOZHIKODE, PIN 673507.

¶33

R1 TO R5, R7 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. RANI DIOTHIMA R6 BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN R9 BY ADV.SRI.P.SANJAY R9 BY ADV. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶34

R8, R10, R11 BY ADV. SRI.K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶35

SRI.S.SREEDEV SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SMT.THUSHARA.V

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

svs

¶38

W.P.(C). NO. 6286/2011

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶41

P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06/07/2010.

¶42

P2: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

¶43

P3: COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶44

P4: COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER R1 ACT DATED 23/09/2010.

¶45

P5: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24/01/2011.

¶46

P6: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 05/04/2010.

¶47

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶48

R8(a):COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT NO.182/10-11/MM/GS/CRPS/DOZ/N-1250/10 DATED 04/10/2010.

¶49

R8(b):COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.E-11346/2010 DATED 09/12/2010 ISSUED BY DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES.

¶50

R8(c):COPY OF THE SAID REPORT NO.313/2010 DATED 18/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOZHIKODE TO TAHSILDAR, CATAKARA.

¶51

R8(d):THE REPORT NO.B3-15975/2010 DATED 27/12/2010 FORWARDED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE.

¶52

R8(e):COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT BEARING NO.PCB/KKD/DO/1554/2011 DATED 03/03/2001 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.

¶53

R8(f):COPY OF THE CONSENT BEARING PCB/KKD/DO/CE 1161/2010 DATED 24/03/2010.

¶54

R8(g):COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.D5-55395/2010 DATED 21/05/2011 BEFORE THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KOZHIKODE.

/TRUE COPY/

svs

P.A. TO JUDGE.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. --------------------------------WP(C) No.6286 OF 2011

¶59

Dated this the 13^th day of December , 2011

¶60

J U D G M E N T

¶61

The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order issued by the second respondent Ext.P1 is a complaint submitted before the District Collector by about 400 people residing in the area of Nidumannur in Vatakara Taluk of Kozhikode District. Ext.P1 complaint is submitted in protest against the functioning of a quarry and stone crusher situated in about 2.50 Acres of property, comprised in Re-survey No:80 in Kayakkody Village at Nidumannur in Vatakara Taluk. In the complaint it is alleged that the operation of the quarry as well as functioning of the stone crusher is causing serious environmental problems to the flaura and fauna and to the wild life in the area. It is also complained that there is immense danger of granite stones falling down from the hilly area due to blasting operations in the quarry. The District Collector had forwarded the complaint to the second

¶62

WP(C) No.6286 OF 2011 2

¶63

respondent and through Ext.P5 order the complaint was disposed of stating that there are no houses situated within around 400metres and there is no agricultural activities in and around the area . It is also observed that no environmental problem will be created by the quarrying activities.

¶64

Contention of the petitioner is that the second respondent had disposed of Ext.P1 complaint without conducting any site inspection. The petitioner relies on Exts.P3 and P4 replies received from the office of the 2nd respondent as well as from the office of the 7^th respondent on the basis of enquiries made under the Right to Information Act, in order to contend that the second respondent had disposed of Ext.P1 complaint without proper application of mind and without conducting any local inspection.

¶65

The 8^th respondent had filed a detailed counter affidavit where in it is stated that he is conducting quarry operations in 2.5 Acres of property comprised in Re-Survey No.80 of Kayaddody Village in Vatakara Taluk, after obtaining

¶66

WP(C) No.6286 OF 2011 3

¶67

all the requisites , consents and licences. He had produced the quarry permit obtained under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 as Ext.R8(a). Ext.R8(b) is the No Objection Certificate issued by the Divisional Officer of Fire and Rescue Services, Kozhikode . Exts.R8(c) and R8(d) are the reports submitted by the Village Officer and Tahsildar concerned, recommending for issuance of license for conducting the quarry operations. It is evident from Exts.R8 (e) and R8(f) that the Kerala State Pollution Control Board has issued 'consent to establish' and 'consent to operate' the unit under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution ) Act 1981, Air (Prevention and Control of pollution ) Act 1974 and Environment (Protection) Act 1986. The 8^th respondent had produced proceedings of the Additional District Magistrate evidencing grant of licence under the Explosive act and Relevant rules. Ext.R8 (g) is the licence issued under the Explosive Act for possession and usage of explosives.

¶68

In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 10 and

¶69

WP(C) No.6286 OF 2011

¶70

¶71

11 it is contended that the quarry with respect to which Ext.P1 complaint is raised is situated in 2.50 Acres comprised in Re-Survey No.80 and the licence holder of the said quarry is the 8^th respondent. According to respondents 10 and 11 they are conducting quarry operations nowhere near to the said property. Learned counsel appearing for the 13^th respondent submitted that he is also not conducting quarry anywhere near the land mentioned in Ext.P1. The counsel appearing for the 6^th respondent Panchayath, submitted that the Panchayath has not granted any licence with respect to quarry conducted in the property in question. However, it is further submitted that on the basis of an application submitted by the 8^th respondent during pendency of this writ petition, the Panchayath had resolved to grant permit for conducting the quarry operations.

¶72

In this writ petition the challenge is against Ext.P5, mainly on the ground that the second respondent had disposed of Ext.P1 complaint without proper application of mind and without conducting any local inspection. It is

¶73

WP(C) No.6286 OF 2011

¶74

¶75

pertinent to note that Ext.P1 is not a statutory petition or appeal or revision filed against any of the licences or permits or consents granted. Through Ext.P1 the petitioner and others are not seeking for enforcement of any statutory right. Therefore, the petitioner cannot raise any successful contention against Ext.P5 alleging non compliance of principles of natural justice. From the facts narrated in Ext.P5 it is evident that the 2^nd respondent had collected all necessary materials for the purpose of disposal of Ext.P1 and it is not necessary for the 2^nd respondent to have any compulsory visit at the site for disposal of a complaint in the nature of Ext.P1.

¶76

However, I notice that the 8^th respondent had obtained all the requisite permissions, licences and consents from various authorities. If the petitioner has got any grievance that such permissions , licences or consents were issued in violation of any of the provisions of the relevant statutes or without having due consideration of the factual materials prevailing, it is left open to the petitioner to

¶77

WP(C) No.6286 OF 2011 6

¶78

approach the appropriate statutory authorities in appeal or revision, seeking cancellation of any such licences or permissions, to the extent permissible under law. Needless to say that the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority if the 8^th respondent is conducting any illegal activities without all requisite valid permissions. It is also left open to the petitioner to invoke the common law. Remedy in case any cause of action exist against the 8^th respondent. But I do no not find any valid reasons to set aside Ext.P5 in this writ petition.

¶79

7 . Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am of

¶80

the view that the challenge against Ext.P5 is not sustainable. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed subject to rights if any available to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court or authorities as mentioned above.

¶81

C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶82

¶83

WP(C) No.6286 OF 2011 7

¶84

WP(C) No.6286 OF 2011 8

Kallulla Parambath Kelappan v. the District Collector,Kozhikode and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallulla Parambath Kelappan v. the District Collector,Kozhikode and Ors.

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.Y.Thomas Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises

Souda.a. Vs State of Kerala and Others

P.K.Rajan Vs the Vadakara Muncipality

The Manager Sree Vidhyadhiraja Vidhya Vs the Government of Kerala & Others

Rejith Rajendran Vs State of Kerala

Reghu.R. Vs State of Kerala