Dismissed

Eliachan P.v.& Another v. Raju & Others

Kerala HC30 Nov 2012WP(C)/26210/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners challenged the operation of a quarry unit in Mulakkulam village causing damages. The court observed that since respondents held valid licenses and permissions from competent authorities, the petitioners lacked any case for illegality and their remedy was to approach statutory authorities via appeal or revision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed against all respondents.

Eliachan P.v.& Another Vs Raju & Others — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/9TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 26210 of 2009 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. ELIACHAN P.V., S/O VARKEY AGED 46 YEARS, KOLLINAKUNNEL HOUSE, PERUVA P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2. AMITHA JEAN, W/O.JEAN PAUL, AGED 33 YEARS, VAKANAL HOUSE, KAKKAD P.O. PIRAVAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.GEORGE VARGHESE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. RAJU, S/O NARAYANAN, AGED 42 YEARS MAVALATHKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MULAKKULAM, PERUVA KOTTAYAM.

¶12

2. LALITHA, W/O.RAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, MAVALATHKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MULAKKULAM, PERUVA KOTTAYAM.

¶13

3. MULAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PERUVA, MULAKKULAM.

¶14

4. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, NAGAMPADAM KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶15

5. GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT MINING AND GEOLOGY, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶16

6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.RAJESH R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC,POLL.C.BOARD R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER M/S MADHU BEN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26210 of 2009 (U)

¶19

WP(C).No. 26210 of 2009

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

P1:	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2008 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
P2:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.12.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE REESIDENTS OF THE LOCALITY TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER.
P3:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.1.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS OF THE LOCALITY TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
P4:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 10.9.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
P5:	COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT VIDE NO. A1-156/2008 DATED 12.2.2009 ISSUED by the 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :

¶24

R1(a):	COPY OF THE WRITTEN CONSENT DATED 26/10/2009 ISSUED BY VARKEY PATHROSE.
R1(b):	COPY OF THE REPORT NO.B6 187/2009 DATED 27/1/2009 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM.
R1(c):	COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE NO.H4-43443/08/K.Dis DATED 3/12/2009 ISSUED BY THE ADM KOTTAYAM AND THE APPROVED SKETCH.
R1(d):	COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RDO NO.349/09/A(8) DATED 12/2/2009
R1(e):	COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.A1-156/08 DATED 12/2/2009 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, MULAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
R1(f):	COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A4-1807 DATED 18/8/2009 ISSUED BY MULAKKULAM.
R1(g):	COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PCB/KTM/CO/42/09 DATED 2/3/2009 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM.
R1(h):	COPY OF THE ORDER NO. D1-31693/08 DATED 25/10/2008 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM.
R1(i):	COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT AND SKETCH NO.473/GBS/CRPS/1981/DOY/09 DATED 23/11/2009
R1(j):	COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C3-84/2009/DDS DATED 27/1/2009 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER.
R4(a):	COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE NO.PCB/KTM/IOC/42/09 DT.2.3.2009.
R4(b:	TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH NO.PCB/KTM/ICE/131/10 DT.19.7.2010 VALID UPTO 18.7.2013.

\ TRUE COPY \

PA TO JUDGE

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶29

W.P.(C).NO.26210/2009

¶30

Dated this the 30^th day of November, 2012

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Petitioners seek the following reliefs. According to the petitioners the quarry and the crusher unit which commenced operation in survey no.223 of Mulakkulam Village in the light of Ext.P1 is causing severe damages to the petitioners and other residents in the locality. It is not in dispute that if the respondents 1 & 2 has obtained all necessary licenses or permissions from competent authorities as per the provisions of law as in force, the petitioners herein cannot seek a declaration or a writ of prohibition as prayed for in this writ petition. The remedy available for the petitioners will be to approach the statutory authority either by filing an appeal or revision as the case may be. It is submitted that the necessary licence had been issued by the Mulakkulam Grama Panchayath. Ext.R1(f) is an order passed by the panchayath on 18/08/2009. If the said order is still in force it is open for the respondents to operate the quarry

¶33

W.P.(C).NO.26210/2009 2

¶34

subject to them having all valid licenses or permission granted as envisaged in Ext.R1 as matters stand now.

¶35

Petitioners do not have a case that the statutory authorities have committed any illegality in issuing the licence. If at all petitioners have a grievance in that regard it is open for them to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. With the above observations the writ petition is dismissed.

¶36

Sd/ - A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶37

MJL

Eliachan P.v.& Another v. Raju & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eliachan P.v.& Another v. Raju & 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

M.M.Vargese Vs Kerala Water Authority

Madana Mohanan.K Vs the Manager , Gopal Memorial Vocational

Dr.Gopu Sankar.M Vs State of Kerala and Others

K.Vijayan & Another Vs State of Kerala and Others

S.Lethika Devi Vs State of Kerala

Kodur House Plot Owners Asson. Vs Kottayam Municipality