Dismissed

Uthuppu v. the District Collector

Kerala HC6 Nov 2014WP(C)/3477/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition challenging a quarry license order and demanding injunctions against quarrying operations. The respondent Panchayath submitted that the licensee actually operates in a different plot (214/6) with a valid permit, while the plot under challenge (214/8) is not being operated. The court dismissed the petition due to lack of challenge against a valid permit.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to challenge the permit granted to the 9th respondent in accordance with law.

Uthuppu Vs the District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/15TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 3477 of 2013 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S)NO.1 & 2 :

¶7

1. UTHUPPU, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, PUTHEN HOUSE, THANIKODE, CHULLY.P.O., AYYAMPUZHA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶8

2. SABU.P.U., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. UTHUPPU, PUTHEN HOUSE, THANIKODE, CHULLY.P.O., AYYAMPUZHA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.J.SANTHOSH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) 1 TO 8:

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE COMPLEX, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶12

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, R.D.O. OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶13

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYAMPUZHA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST-683 581.

¶14

4. THE SECRETARY, AYYAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ERNAKULAM DIST-683 581.

¶15

5. THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682 020.

¶16

6. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY, ERNAKULAM-682011.

¶17

WP(C).No. 3477 of 2013 (H)

¶18

7. THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, C-2-IIIRD FLOOR CGO COMPLEX, KAKKANAD,

¶19

ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶20

8. DIRECTOR OF MINES SAFETY , FLAT NO. D-404, MAJESTIC RESIDENCY APARTMENT, TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD,

¶21

BANGALORE-560 029. (REMOVED)

¶22

(R8 IS REMOVED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 17/09/2014 IN IA 11921/2014)

¶23

9. M.M. SHAIJU, S/O. MATHACHAN, MANGALY HOUSE, MANJAPARA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST-683 581.

¶24

R4 BY ADV. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH

¶25

R4 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.JOJO GEORGE R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA R9 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED

¶26

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEROGE.

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

RVS.

¶29

WP(C).No. 3477 of 2013 (H)

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶32

EXT. P1.	TRUE PETIT	COPY O IONERS	F THE BUILDING OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE OF DATED 13/10/1999.
EXT. P2.	TRUE 20/10	COPY /2011.	OF RESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATE DATED
EXT. P3.	TRUE	COPY OF	STOP MEMO DATED 02/02/11.
EXT. P4.	TRUE RENEW	COPY OF ING QU	ORDER OF 6TH RESPONDEDNT DATED 25/04/11. ARRY PERMIT DATED 26/04/11.
EXT. P5.	TRUE NO.80	COPY 26/2012	OF ORDER OF HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) DATED 27/04/2012.
EXT. P6.	TRUE 18/05	COPY /12.	OF DIRECTION OF 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
EXT. P7.	TRUE	COPY OF	ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31/05/12.

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶34

-----------------------

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

RVS.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶40

=========================

¶41

W.P(C).No.3477 of 2013 H

¶42

============================ Dated this the 06^th day of November, 2014

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners for the following

¶45

reliefs:

¶46

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the 1^st respondent to call for the reports from the respondent No.3 to 9 regarding the compliance of conditions in the license and to set aside the order dated 31.05.2012 passed by the 2^nd respondent after an enquiry and to prohibit the 9^th respondent from operating the granite quarry having an extent of 20.23 ares of land in Resurvey No.214/8 in Resurvey Block No.19 of the Ayyampuzha Village.

¶47

(ii) To issue an appropriate writ or order directing the 1^st respondent to examine and assess the nuisance and damage to the property of the petitioners and as well as to the environment caused by the quarrying and assess and recover from the 1^st respondent, the financial requirement for its restoration.

¶48

(iii) Issue such other writ or orders or directions, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case.

¶49

¶50

W.P(C).No.3477 of 2013

¶51

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the panchayath that the 9^th respondent is having permit to conduct quarrying operation in resurvey No.214/6 and not in resurvey No.214/8. The 9^th respondent is not operating any quarrying operation in resurvey No.214/8.

¶52

In view of the fact that the 9^th respondent is armed with permit to operate quarry in resurvey No.214/6, it is not under challenge before this Court, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge any permit granted to the 9^th respondent in accordance with law, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.

¶55

Sbna/06/11/14

Uthuppu v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uthuppu 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

V.Ananthalakshmi Vs Sri.D.T.S Rao

Abdulla Shabeer Vs the State of Kerala

Atlasgold Townships(India)Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

Sasikumar Nambiar Vs the Nodal Officer

Dr.Sabila a. Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

P.a.Hamsa Vs the Branch Manager