Disposed

M.a.Varghese v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Sept 2014WP(C)/6934/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court addressed writ petitions regarding quarrying operations by a petitioner whose geologist permit had expired. The Court held that no activity can continue until the permit is renewed and required panchayat/PCB permissions are obtained, mandating specific timelines for renewal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed not to undertake activity until permit renewed and licenses obtained; local authority directed to hear objections and seek PCB views within specified months.

M.a.Varghese Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/12TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 6934 of 2014 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M.A. VARGHESE, S/O.ANDREWS, AGED 63 YEARS, MADATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHAMBAKKARA. P.O., KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM-686 540.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SMT.ANNA THOMAS.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶12

3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY-686 101.

¶13

4. THE GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶14

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUKACHAL VILLAGE, KARUKACHAL-686 540.

¶15

6. RAJAPPAN ACHARI, PUTHENVEEDU, KARUKACHAL. P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 540.

¶16

7. P.K. VISWANATHAN, VYSHAKH HOUSE, KARUKACHAL. P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 540.

¶17

WP(C).No. 6934 of 2014 (N)

¶18

8. KARUKACHAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KARUKACHAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686 540.

¶19

R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.M. MUHAMMED SHAFI. R6 & R7 BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM. R8 BY ADV. SRI.C.S. MANILAL, SC.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-09-2014, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.17370 OF 2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

rs.

¶22

WP(C).No. 6934 of 2014 (N)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶25

P1TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO.355/1981 DATED 06.02.1981 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

¶26

P1(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO.546/1981 DATED 26.02.1981 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

¶27

P1(B)- TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO.598/2006 DATED 16.03.2006 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

¶28

P2TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUKACHAL DATED 08.05.2013.

¶29

P3TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TAHSILDAR DATED 10.05.2013 NO.E2 5497/2013.

¶30

P4TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22.05.2013 NO.H4-26982/13/L DIS.

¶31

P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.11.2013 NO.114/20132014/123/DOY/ML/2013 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST, KOTTAYAM.

¶32

P6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K-2432/13 DATED 17.05.2013 OF RDO, KOTTAYAM.

¶33

P7TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.623/13 DATED 02.12.2013.

¶34

P8TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.623/13 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 03.12.2013.

¶35

P9TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.N.6571/13/L./DIS DATED 06.12.2013 PASSED BY THE RDO.

¶36

P10TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT.

¶37

P11TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER AFTER ACCEPTING MONEY FROM THE PETITIONER DATED 03.12.2012.

¶38

P12TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A-6525/13 DATED 13.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH.

¶39

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶40

EXT.R7A PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE QUARRYING OPERATIONS WHICH ARE BEING CONDUCTED IN THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶45

W.P.(C).Nos.6934 & 17370 of 2014

¶46

¶47

Dated this the 3^rd day of September, 2014

¶48

J U D G M E N T

¶49

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

¶50

These writ petitions are relating to removal of rock in the property belonging to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6934 of 2014. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6934 of 2014 approached this Court challenging Ext.P12 notice issued by the local authority directing the petitioner to stop the activity of removing the rocks from his property. According to the petitioner his activity is not coming under section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Therefore, the petitioner would submit that based on the permission granted by the Geologist he is entitled to remove the rock.

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 17370 of 2014 is filed by a local resident on the ground that the petitioner in W. .P.(C) No. 6934 of 2014 is undertaking quarrying operations without obtaining necessary permission from the Pollution Control Board and Panchayat.

¶52

As matters stand now, the petitioner’s permit to remove the rock and sand issued by the Geologist has been expired. Therefore, the petitioner cannot undertake any activity based on the permit unless it is renewed by the Geologist. With regard to the notice issued by the local authority produced as Ext.P12 in W.P.(C) No. 6934 of 2014, the petitioner shall raise objections before the local authority. Local authority shall pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6934 of 2014, whether the

¶53

W.P.(C).Nos.6934 & 17370 of 2014 :2:

¶54

petitioner requires permission in terms of relevant provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Before passing such orders, the local authority shall obtain views of the Pollution Control Board whether this matter has to be considered or not.

¶55

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6934 of 2014 cannot undertake the activity of removing rock and sand unless and until the Geologist consider the application for renewal of permit. The local authority shall take a decision whether the petitioner requires any licence in terms of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The local authority before taking such decision shall afford an opportunity of hearing the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17370 of 2014 and also obtain views of Pollution Control Board. Petitioner can only undertake the activity of removing the rock and sand if it is permitted by the Geologist and also depend upon outcome of the decision of the Panchayat. The Geologist shall consider the application for renewal of permit within a period of three weeks. The Panchyath shall take a decision within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶56

Writ petitions are disposed of.

¶57

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶58

jm/

M.a.Varghese v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.a.Varghese v. State of Kerala

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

Chippy Sajanan Vs the Deputy Director of Education

Sasi Vs the State of Kerala

Sali John Vs State of Kerala

T.K.Manoj Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Riju M. Vs the Passport Officer

K.Padmanabhan Nair Vs the District Collector