Dismissed

Subash A.D. v. the District Expert Committee, Mining & Geology Department

Kerala HC7 Jan 2015WP(C)/35307/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking a mandate for issuance of No Objection Certificate and quarrying permit for dry sand excavation within a time limit, the single judge held no need to examine merits and instead directed the second respondent to finalize proceedings within six weeks after hearing affected parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Collector to finalize proceedings regarding the petitioners application within six weeks and afford hearing to affected parties.

Subash A.D. Vs the District Expert Committee, Mining… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/17TH POUSHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 35307 of 2014 (K)

¶6

PETITIONERS :

¶7

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

¶8

1. SUBASH A.D., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.DASAN, ATTAPURAM HOUSE, VAIKOM P.O.NADUVILLA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.

¶9

2. WILSON MATHEW, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, PANDARAMALIYIL, PUNNATHURA P.O. KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE DISTRICT EXPERT COMMITTEE, MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, CONSTITUTED UNDER THE KERALA PROTECTION OF RIVER BANKS AND REGULATION OF REMOVAL OF SAND ACT 2001, REP. BY GEOLOGIST/CONVENOR, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶14

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM - 686 002.

¶15

3. THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, KOTTAYAM - 686 002.

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. GEORGE JOSEPH

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 35307 of 2014 (K)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT.P-1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS ALONG WITH THE WIFE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 28.5.2014.

¶23

EXT.P-2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT AGREEMENT DATED 28.5.2014 ALONG WITH THE WIFE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶24

EXT.P-3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.8.2014.

¶25

EXT.P-4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM DATED 7.11.2014 OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶26

EXT.P-5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.12.2014

¶27

EXT.P-6: THE TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO.132/14/ID DATED 22.9.2014

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(C). No. 35307 of 2014

¶35

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

¶36

Dated this the 7^th day of January, 2015

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayer:

¶39

(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider Exhibit P3 application and grant the No Objection Certificate alongwith the recommendation for the issuance of quarrying permit for excavating dry sand from the properties in Sy.Nos.115/11 and 115/12 of Ayarkkunnam Village, Kottayam Taluk as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶40

2. The learned Government Pleader submits that

¶41

the matter has to be ascertained as to whether the quarrying permit for excavating the sand is in respect of the river sand or not. In response to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not seek for any relief in the contention with the river sand and that actual position is discernible from the contents of Ext.P4 issued by the concerned

¶42

-2-

¶43

W.P.(C). No. 35307 of 2014

¶44

Tahsildar addressing the District Collector/ 2^nd respondent.

¶45

After hearing both the sides, this Court does not find any necessary to go into the merits of the case. The writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to take further steps and to finalise the proceedings in respect of Ext.P3, in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other affected parties, if any. It shall be done at the earliest at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of this writ petition to the concerned respondent.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶48

das

Subash A.D. v. the District Expert Committee, Mining & Geology Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subash A.D. v. the District Expert Committee, Mining & Geology Department

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

Reji K Koshy Vs Executive Engineer

V.O.Sajan Vs State of Kerala

Meera S Vs Chairman, Appeal Committee

Shibu Mon R. Vs District Chief of Police

Shylock P.V Vs Chief Executive Officer,Kerala State Wakf Board

Sayedalavi Vs State of Kerala