Disposed

Viyani Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. v. the District Collector

Kerala HC13 Jun 2012WP(C)/6930/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought to quash an order by the Panchayat prohibiting land excavation and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider its application. The Court acknowledged the Revenue Officer's competence as asserted in the respondent's statement and directed him to consider the application within six weeks. The petition was disposed of without further order on merits.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to consider the petitioner's application within six weeks.

Viyani Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/23RD JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 6930 of 2012 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

------------------------VIYANI ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD., ARUNOOTTIMANGALAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, LAMBOCHAN MATHEW, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. LATE P.C.MATHEW.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶11

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 575.

¶12

3. THE TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686141.

¶13

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAKKULAM VILLAGE, MULAKKULAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 664.

¶14

5. THE MULAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH

¶15

MULAKKULAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶16

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-686 664.

¶17

6. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST,

¶18

DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686 002.

¶19

R1 TO R4 & R6 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.ABDUL SALAM

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Kss

¶22

WPC.NO.6930/2012 M

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶25

EXHIBIT P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04-02-2012 SENT TO THE RESPONDENTS BY REGISTERED POST WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT DUE.

¶26

EXHIBIT P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03-03-2012 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY.

¶27

EXHIBIT P3: PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECISION DATED 15-02-2012 TAKEN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶33

........................................ W.P.(C).6930/2012

¶34

.............................................. Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2012

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Petitioner approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P3 and to require the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1.

¶37

Ext.P3 is a communication issued by the Panchayat prohibiting removal of ordinary earth and Ext.P1 is an application made by the petitioner to the second respondent seeking permission in this behalf.

¶38

Going by the statement filed on behalf of the second respondent, the competent authority to whom the petitioner should have approached for getting the licene to extract and remove the ordinary soil is the second respondent.

¶39

Now that the competence of the second respondent is asserted in the statement filed on behalf of the second respondent himself, and as the

¶40

W.P.(C).6930/12

¶41

petitioner has already filed Ext.P1 before the second respondent, I direct the second respondent to consider the same in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner, and pass orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition.

¶42

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶43

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶44

mrcs

¶45

/true copy/ PA To Judge

Viyani Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Viyani Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. v. the District 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

Ramesh Kumar Vs Dr.F.Subbayah

The Muthoot Plaza Airpots Operations Vs Shri R.S. Gujral, Secretary to Government

State Bank of India Vs K.a.Thomas

Nm.Fathima Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Narayanan Nair K.G. Vs State of Kerala

Private Bus Operators Association, Mala Unit Vs State of Kerala