In this writ petition concerning an objection to a quarry operation, the court received a submission that the quarry has not been operating since 2008. Consequently, the court deemed it unnecessary to consider the petition's contentions and closed the matter.
The writ petition was closed without further consideration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2012/25TH ASHADHA 1934
WP(C).No. 6674 of 2008 (T)
PETITIONER(S):
OMANA.A.S., ALPARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KEEZHILLAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU
RESPONDENT(S):
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
2. R.D.O., MUVATTUPUZHA.
3. GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM.
4. DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, POWER HOUSE EXTENSION ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH.
5. RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAYAMANGALAM.
6. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPAMPADY.
7. YACOB, MUTHUKKATTU HOUSE, NELLIMOLAM, RAYAMANGALAM P.O.
8. MATHEW V.MATHEW, VEENAMAALIL HOUSE,KEEZHILLAM P.O.
*ADDL.R9 IMPLEADED:
R1 TO R3 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUNITHA VINOD R4 BY ADV.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R5 BY ADVS.SRI.N.K.KARNIS R9 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
WPC.NO.6674/2008 T
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
N I L
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 6674 OF 2008
===================
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition was filed objecting to a quarry which was originally operated by respondents 7 and 8 and is now transferred to the additional 9th respondent.
In the light of the said submission, it is unnecessary to consider the contentions raised in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is closed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
OMANA.A.S.
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM
RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
YACOB
MATHEW V.MATHEW
JENIN DANIEL
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
