Disposed

Rev. Mammen Samuel v. District Collector

Kerala HC23 Sept 2015WP(C)/4605/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition directing the Panchayath to consider a NOC request for granite removal for a house, relying on Rule 106 exemptions while reserving adjudication of pollution/sound for the Board. No order was passed immediately.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application for NOC. Reserved right of the 4th respondent to act on pollution if blasting occurs.

Rev. Mammen Samuel Vs District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/1ST ASWINA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 4605 of 2014 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

REV. MAMMEN SAMUEL, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.LATE C.M.SAMUEL, CHEMPAKATHINAL, NARANGANAM P.O., KOZHENCHERY.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.

¶11

2. NARANGANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

¶12

NARANGANAM - 689 642., REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

3. MINING & GEOLOGIST,

¶14

DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.

¶15

4. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, (REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 001.

¶16

R1 & 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PADMALAYAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ARUNKUMAR, SC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 4605 of 2014 (A)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT.P1:	A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF LAND TAX DATED 15/7/13 FOR THE PERIOD 2013-2014 WITH REGARD TO PETITIONERS ABOVE PROPERTY
EXT.P2:	A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 15/7/13 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P3:	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY JITTO SAM JACOB, A REGISTERED ARCHITECT.
EXT.P4:	A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN FOR PETITIONER'S HOUSE,
EXT.P5:	A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT SEEKING PERMISSION TO REMOVE GRANTE ROCKS
EXT.P6:	A TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRY PERMIT ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT VALID UP TO 10/12/2013.
EXT.P7:	A TRUE COPY OF CONSENT DATED NIL GIVEN BY PETITIONER'S NEIGHBORS
EXT.P8:	A TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH
EXT.P9:	A TRUE COPY OF THE A LETTER DATED 20/11/2013 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH DIRECTING PETITIONER TO GET CONSENT FROM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD FOR REMOVING GRANITE FORM PETITIONER PROPERTY.
RESPONDEN	T(S)' EXHIBITS
------------------	---------------------
EXT.R2(A):	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED FROM SENIOR GEOLOGIST WITH THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 1/10/13
EXT.R4(1):	COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED BY THE R4 FROM THE NARANGANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH R2 DATED 10/10/13
EXT.R4(2):	COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT.R4(1) ISSUED BY THE R4 TO THE R2 DATED 5/11/13
EXT.R4(3):	COPY OF THE CIRCULAR OF THE R4 BOARD DATED 18/10/06
EXT.R4(4):	COPY OF THE CIRCULAR OF THE R4 BOARD DATED 13/6/2007
EXT.R4(5):	COPY OF THE CIRCULAR OF THE R4 BOARD DATED 20/7/11.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶27

= = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.4605 of 2014

¶28

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23^rd day of September, 2015

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the 2^nd respondent to grant no-objection certificate to the petitioner for removal of granite rocks from 10 cents of land in Sy.No.95/1 in Block No.15 in Naranganam Village of Kozhencherry Taluk for construction of his house. The petitioner submits that in view of the provisions of Rule 106 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 the petitioner is entitled to exemption from obtaining quarrying permit or lease for extraction of granite rocks since such extraction is inevitable for construction of residential house in the property. The petitioner also states that the extraction is being conducted in the petitioner's property having extent of 16.8 Ares and consent is being withheld only on the ground that the Pollution Control Board had raised an objection that quarrying operations cannot be permitted within 100ms from the residential buildings, public buildings, places of worship etc.

¶31

W.P.(C).No.4605 of 2014

¶32

¶33

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent that there is restriction on sound levels generated while extraction is carried out as well. It is stated that the public road in front of the petitioner's property is within a distance of 13ms from the petitioner's property and therefore no quarrying lease can be granted. It is clear from a reading of Rule 106 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 that where construction of a minor mineral is as a part of the work for construction of residential building, the person doing such work can be exempted from obtaining quarrying permit/lease. Rule 106 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 reads as follows:-

¶34

“ 106. Extraction of minerals for special purposes.-- (1) In any case or class of cases such as construction of common facilities or residential building where extraction of minor mineral is inevitable as a part of the work, the person doing such work may be exempted from obtaining quarrying permit/lease under these rules:

¶35

Provided that before extraction of minor minerals, the person concerned shall intimate the competent authority his intention to carry out the works to be performed and shall furnish necessary documents as required by the competent authority in this regard. If the extracted mineral is to be transported outside the worksite, the competent authority may issue special mineral transit passes after collecting the royalty.”

¶36

W.P.(C).No.4605 of 2014

¶37

¶38

In the above circumstances, the contention raised by the respondents 2 and 4 to the effect that the distance of 100ms is to be maintained from the public road in front of the petitioner's property may not hold good in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. On the production of necessary documents and on submission of the application before the authorised officer, the petitioner is entitled to be granted permission for carrying out the necessary excavation of rocks in 10 cents of property for construction of residential building without reference to the distance limit from the public road as provided in the circulars. This is more so, since exemption from possession of quarrying lease/licence is contemplated for residential purposes under the Rules.

¶39

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's request for no-objection certificate as sought by the petitioner for removal of granite rock from 10 cents of property for construction of a residential house. In case the blasting

¶40

W.P.(C).No.4605 of 2014

¶41

¶42

operation, as found necessary, carried out in the property creates any sound or other pollution, the 4^th respondent will be free to take action, in accordance with law.

¶43

Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶44

Rev. Mammen Samuel v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rev. Mammen Samuel v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Divakaran Vs Malabar Devaswom Board

K.Ramadasan Vs the Commissioner for Workments

Benny P.J. Vs State of Kerala

The Federal Bank Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

Ambika Vs State of Kerala

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs Sukran.M.G. and Another