Remanded

Moochamkundu Poura Samithi v. District Collector

Kerala HC20 Mar 2014WA/465/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala issued directions to authorities to ensure that assurances given by a mine operator regarding quarrying depths and conditions are not violated. The Court directed out-of-turn hearings and a fresh decision on the interim stay application without prejudice to prior observations.

What did the court decide?

Directions to authorities to ensure assurances by the operator are not flouted; direction for fresh hearing of interim order.

Moochamkundu Poura Samithi Vs District Collector — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/29TH PHALGUNA, 1935 WA.No. 465 of 2014 () IN WP(C).3934/2014 ------------------------------------------

¶4

(AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 3934/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 07-03-2014) APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER IN W.P.(c):

¶5

MOOCHAMKUNDU POURA SAMITHI REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT PASHANISWAMY, S/O. KRISHNASWAMY GOUNDER, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT MOOCHAMKUNDU GOVINDHAPURAM P.O., CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 507.

¶6

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.BABY MATHEW

¶7

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(c):

¶8

1.DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD.

¶9

TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHITTUR.

¶10

3.VILLAGE OFFICER, MUDHALAMADA NO. 1 VILLAGE, CHITTUR THALUK.

¶11

4.GEOLOGIST, MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, TOWN BUS STAND COMPLEX PALAKKAD.

¶12

5.ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, NEAR DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICE, PALAKKAD.

¶13

6.SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLENGODE POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶14

7.MUDHALAMADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUDHALAMADA, CHITTUR THALUK.

¶15

8.FIVE STAR METALS (P) LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.G.MADHAVAN, MOOCHAMKUNDU, GOVINDHAPURAM P.O. CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 507.

¶16

R7 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN R BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN R8 BY ADV. SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY R1 TO 4 & 6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ABUBACKER R5 BY SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BO

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-032014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K. M. JOSEPH & A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JJ

¶19

W.A.No. 465 OF 2014

¶20

Dated this the 20^th day of March 2014

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

K.M. Joseph, J

¶23

The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3934/2014. The writ petition was filed feeling aggrieved by Ext.P6 order by which Ext.P5 stop memo issued by the 4^th respondentGeologist was withdrawn. Ext.P7 is a stop memo issued by the 7^th respondent-Panchayat, which is stayed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The petitioner sought interim relief of staying Ext.P6. The said request has been declined by the learned Single Judge vide interim order. It is the said interim order which is under challenge.

¶24

We heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant, learned senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and 6, the learned counsel for the 8^th respondent, the counsel for 5^th respondent and also the counsel appearing for the 7^th respondent.

¶25

The learned senior counsel for the appellant would point out that there is no basis for not granting the interim order. This is a case where contrary to the finding of this court that, if quarrying is done below 20 feet provisions of the Mines

¶26

¶27

W.A. No. 465/2014

¶28

Act will apply, quarrying is being done. Quarrying leads to drying up of wells and seepage of water as reported in Ext.P11.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel for the 8^th respondent would submit that conditions have been imposed as is evident from Ext. R8(k) which corresponds to Ext.P10. The learned counsel for the 8^th respondent would in fact submit that the 8^th respondent is not quarrying below 20 feet and it does intend to quarry below 20 feet.

¶30

We record the above submission. We direct that the 1^st and 4^th respondent will ensure that the assurance given by the 8^th respondent is not flouted by the 8^th respondent. We also request the learned Single Judge to accord an out of turn hearing of the case and that the matter is decided untrammeled by the observations contained in the interim order.

¶31

The first and fourth respondents will ensure that the assurance afforded by the 8^th respondent is not flouted in letter and spirit. Sd/-

¶32

K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE . Sd/-

¶33

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶34

Dpk.

¶35

/true copy/ PS to Judge.

¶36

W.A. No. 465/2014 3

Moochamkundu Poura Samithi v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moochamkundu Poura Samithi v. 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

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs K.Mohanan

P.v.Kunheebi Vs v.S.Koyattil

Jacky Vs Gracy

The National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Padmanabhan Karintha

Padmanabhan Karintha Vs K.S.R.T.C

Biji Vs Sundaresan