Allowed

M.Sudhakaran v. the Geologist

Kerala HC5 Jun 2014WP(C)/11640/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition alleging illegal quarrying by respondents. It held that the respondents lack a quarrying license and directed authorities to ensure no quarrying occurs without proper statutory permission.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent authorities to ensure that the party respondent does not conduct any quarrying operation in the land without proper permission from the statutory authorities.

M.Sudhakaran Vs the Geologist — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/15TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 11640 of 2013 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M. SUDHAKARAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, MANIYAMVEETTIL HOUSE, PANDAMANGALAM, P.O. KOTTAKKAL, PIN- 676 503.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT GEOLOGY OFFICE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM-676 502.

¶11

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM-676 503.

¶12

3. MURALEEDHARAN,

¶13

S/O.VELAYUDHAN, MANIYAMVEETTIL HOUSE, PANDAMANGALAM, KOTTAKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 503.

¶14

4. MOHANAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, MANIYAMVEETTIL HOUSE, PANDAMANGALAM, KOTTAKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 503.

¶15

5. VIJAYAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, MANIYAMVEETTIL HOUSE, PANDAMANGALAM, KOTTAKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 503.

¶16

6. THE KOTTAKKAL MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 503.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.SOJAN JAMES. R3 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ. R6 BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

rs.

¶20

WP(C).No. 11640 of 2013 (D)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶23

EXHIBIT-P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25.10.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 03.11.2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20.04.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24.04.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24.04.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶25

EXT.R5A	COPY OF THE CONSENT GIVEN BY THE NEIGHBOURS OF THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 DATED NIL.
EXT.R5B	COPY OF THE CONSENT GIVEN FROM THE HINDU SEVA SAMITHI, KOTTAKKAL DATED 09/04/2013.
EXT.R5C	COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE R.D.O. TIRUR DATED 14/02/2013.
EXT.R5D	COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10/04/2013.
EXT.R5E	COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 29/06/2013.
EXT.R5F	COPY OF THE INTIMATION FROM THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 03/08/2013.
EXT.R5G	COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 19/10/2013.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

W.P.C.No.11640 OF 2013

¶31

--------------------------------------Dated this the 5^th June, 2014

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner has approached this Court complaining about the illegal quarrying operation done by the respondents 3 to 5 and for a direction to respondents 1, 2 and 6 to initiate steps to stop the illegal activities in the property comprised in Resurvey No. 151/10 of Kottakkal Village.

¶34

The party respondent submits that he had an intention to carry on the quarrying operation, but as matters stand now, he does not have the licence to do so. That apart, he had applied for the permission for constructing a building in the said property which was allowed by Ext.R5(e) permit. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the local authority that no licence has been granted for any quarrying in the said land.

¶35

Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, it is clear that the party respondent does not have any right to carry on any quarrying in the property in question.

¶36

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed directing the

¶37

¶38

W.P.C.No.11640 OF 2013

¶39

respondent authorities to ensure that the party respondent does not conduct any quarrying operation in the land without proper permission from the statutory authorities.

¶40

Sd/A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶41

¶42

// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

M.Sudhakaran v. the Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sudhakaran v. the Geologist

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

Muneer N K Vs the Secretary

Anilkumar C.R Vs University of Calicut

Bava Vs State of Kerala

M.M.Ali Vs Land Revenue Commissioner

Smt.Retnamma Vs the Union of India

Raghavan Vs the Village Officer