Disposed

Salim K.M. v. District Collector, Trichur

Kerala HC13 Nov 2013WP(C)/18022/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that a prohibitory order preventing a quarry operation, issued by the Tahsildar based on District Collector's proceedings, could not be finalized without a hearing. The Court directed the District Collector to call reports, provide an opportunity of hearing to all parties, and finalize the proceedings within two months. The interim order remains in force.

What did the court decide?

Direction to District Collector to finalize proceedings within two months after giving hearing to all concerned parties; interim order continues.

Salim K.M. Vs District Collector, Trichur — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/22ND KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 18022 of 2013 (C)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. SALIM K.M. S/O. MAKKAR, KALAPURAKKAL HOUSE, KILLIMANGALAM P.O. THALAPPILLY TALUK, TRICHUR.

¶8

2. NAZEEMA SALIM

¶9

W/O. SALIM K.M., KALAPURAKKAL HOUSE KILLIMANGALAM P.O., THALAPPILLY TALUK, TRICHUR.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI. K.I. MAYANKUTTY MATHER

¶11

SRI. P. RAHUL

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR TRICHUR-680 001.

¶14

2. TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, THAZHAPPILLY TALUK, WADAKKANCHERRY TRICHUR-680 001.

¶15

3. SECRETARY

¶16

PANJAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PANJAL, TRICHUR-680 016.

¶17

4. VILLAGE OFFICER VENGANELLOOR, KILLIMANGALAM, THALAPPILLY TALUK TRICHUR-680 591.

¶18

5. GEOLOGIST DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY MINI CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR-680 101.

¶19

6. SURESH KUMAR

¶20

WARD MEMBER (WARD 7), PANJAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH POOVATHADI HOUSE, KILLIMANGALAM, TRICHUR-680 591.

¶21

7. GOPALAN PUTHAMPURACKAL HOUSE, NEAR PANAMKUNNATHUKAVU KILLIMANGALAM, THALAPPILLY, TRICHUR-680 591.

¶22

(Contd.....)

¶23

WP(C).No. 18022 of 2013 (C)

¶24

¶25

8. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, 6TH FLOOR SUN TOWER, EAST FORT P.O., THRISSUR-680 005.

¶26

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE BY ADVS. SRI. BINOY VASUDEVAN

¶27

SMT. P.G. BABITHA

¶28

SRI. G. SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

WP(C).No. 18022 of 2013 (C)

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-

¶34

EXT. P1	:	COPY OF THE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED .4.3.1995.
EXT. P2	:	COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 4.1.2008.
EXT. P3	:	COPY OF THE SHOT FIRER'S CERTIFICATE DATED 17.9.2012.
EXT. P3(A)	:	COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENCE AND THE AMENDMENTS TO PURCHASE LIMIT DATED 6.2.2009.
EXT. P3(B)	:	COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT DATED 14.1.2013.
EXT. P3(C)	:	COPY OF THE LICENCE FROM THE PANJAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 4.5.2013.
EXT. P3(D)	:	COPY OF THE CONSENT FROM THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 12.4.2012.
EXT. P4	:	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 12.10.2011.
EXT. P5	:	COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE, TRICHUR DATED 15.6.2006.
EXT. P6	:	COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 4.6.2013.
EXT. P7	:	COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 4.6.2013.
EXT. P8	:	COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6.7.2013.
EXT. P9	:	COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGANELOOR.
EXT. P10	:	COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH.
EXT. P10(a)	:	COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT. P11	:	COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶35

(Contd.....)

¶36

WP(C).No. 18022 of 2013 (C)

¶37

¶38

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-

¶39

EXT. R3(a) : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS OF THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA. EXT. R3(b) : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 24.05.2013. EXT. R3(c) : COPY OF THE REPORT RECEIVED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 03.06.2013. EXT. R3(d) : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.06.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,J.

¶44

W.P (C) NO. 18022 of 2013

¶45

---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13^th day of November, 2013

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

The first petitioner is the husband of the second petitioner. In the property possessed and enjoyed by the second petitioner, a quarry is being operated by the first petitioner on the strength that the requisite licence issued by the competent authority. While so, the operation of unit was intercepted by the second respondent as per Ext.P8 Prohibitory order dated 06.07.2013, with reference to the proceedings bearing No.11-24104/2013, dated 24.05.2013, of the District Collector, the first respondent, as to the threat stated as being caused to the nearby inhabitants. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent referring to the facts and figures. The learned Counsel for the third respondent submits that, pursuant to the complaints preferred by the local

¶48

W.P (C) NO. 18022 of 2013 2

¶49

inhabitants, an inspection was caused to be effected by the Panchayath, which revealed that there was some merit in the complaint and that some cracks had appeared in the building situated nearby. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 6 and 7 submits that it was pursuant to the complaints preferred by the said respondent, that proceedings were taken by the District Collector leading to issuance of Ext.P8. During the course of hearing, it is brought to notice of this Court that the matter could be considered and finalized by the first respondent, more so since it was on the basis of the proceedings initiated by the first respondent that Ext.P8 came to be issued.

¶50

In the said circumstance, there will be direction

¶51

to the first respondent to call for a report from all concerned and finalize the proceedings forming the subject matter of the letter bearing No.11-24104/2013, dated 24.05.2013, referred to in Ext.P8, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the writ petitioner, the third respondent Panchayath, and also the contesting respondents 6 & 7. The proceedings as above shall be finalized at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of

¶52

W.P (C) NO. 18022 of 2013

¶53

¶54

a copy of this judgment. Interim order will continue till such

¶55

time.

¶56

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶57

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶58

DMR/-

Salim K.M. v. District Collector, Trichur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim K.M. v. District Collector, Trichur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Sowil Ltd. through Its Secretary Vs Mr.Prabhakaran P.K.

Santhakumari Amma Vs Alex Joseph

Jidheesh Joshi Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Sainaba Vs State of Kerala

Usha Perinkatath Vs Tahasildar, Thalassery Taluk

T.R.Sivasankaran Vs the Banking Ombudsman