Allowed

Kunhikannan v. Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC6 Sept 2012WP(C)/11927/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition alleging illegal quarrying by the sixth respondent. The court examined the exhibits including a stop memo and allowed the petition, directing that quarrying without proper licenses be stopped and ordering appropriate action against unauthorized activities.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; quarrying operations without proper licenses/permits to be stopped; officials directed to take action against unauthorized activity.

Kunhikannan Vs Superintendent of Police — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/15TH BHADRA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 11927 of 2012 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.KANNAN NAMBIAR, PALANGADAN, MADAKKAMPOYIL PERINGOME AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KANNUR, PIN-670 001.

¶11

2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PAYYANNUR, KANNUR, PIN-670 001.

¶12

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERINGOME, KANNUR, PIN-670 307.

¶13

4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANNUR, PIN-670 001.

¶14

5. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KANNUR, PIN-670 001.

¶15

6. K.VASUNDARAN, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.KARUNAKARAN, MADAKKAMPOYIL, PERINGOME KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 307.

¶16

R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SANJEETHA

¶17

R6 BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.SOHAN, SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

WP(C).No. 11927 of 2012 (M)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED JEMN SALE DEED NO.1606/11 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, PERINGOME DATED 25.5.2011 OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 4.11.2011.

¶25

EXHIBIT P2(A)- TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 4.11.2011.

¶26

EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 25.11.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT P3(A)- TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 25.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 25.11.11 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT 16/1/2012 ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINGOME.

¶30

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT 18/2/2012 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINGOME.

¶31

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF STOP MENO DT 08/3/2012 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER.

¶32

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF REPORT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA DT 6/3/2012.

¶33

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶38

W.P.(C). No.11927/2012-M

¶39

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶40

Dated this the 6^th day of September , 2012

¶41

J U D G M E N T

¶42

Alleging that the sixth respondent is conducting an illegal quarry, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for various reliefs including a direction to the respondents to take effective steps to see that quarrying operation is stopped.

¶43

Along with I.A.No.12010/2012, the petitioner has produced Ext.P7 stop memo issued by the Village Officer. The same is issued in the light of the direction issued by the District Collector.

¶44

Learned counsel for the sixth respondent submits that he is not conducting any quarry.

¶45

In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed and without getting proper licences and permits, quarrying operations will not be conducted and, if any, unauthorised quarrying activity is again attempted by the sixth respondent, the concerned officials will take appropriate action as enjoined by law. No costs.

¶46

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

¶47

ms

Kunhikannan v. Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunhikannan v. Superintendent of Police

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

The Manager, Ptpmlps, Cheruvkkal P.O., Kollam Vs S.L. Baiju, a.E.O, Veliyam, Kollam District

Premdeelama.G.S Vs Vijayan Unni

Bedimon.S. Vs Dr.v.Geetha

M.S.Sheriff Vs Sri.M.Sivasankar

Dr. T. Sasidharan Vs the Registrar

M/S.Uae Exchange and Financial Services Limited Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.