The petitioner challenged a notice requiring additional information and clearance to expand quarrying operations. The court held the petition premature due to lack of response to the notice, without adjudicating merits.
Petition disposed of without adjudicating merits, directed to file objections to the notice.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/1ST PHALGUNA, 1936
WP(C).No. 571 of 2014 (V)
PETITIONER:
JOY SCARIA, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. SCARIA, PULIKKUNNEL HOUSE, POOVATHODE P.O., BHARANANGANAM, PALA, KOTTAYAM - 686 578.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMAR SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.P.A.ISMAIL SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G SRI.DIPU JAMES
RESPONDENTS:
R, BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS R3 BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 571 of 2014 (V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF LEASE AGREEMENT NO.1216 DATED 01.02.2012.
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY PLAN DATED 03.12.2011.
EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 17.01.2012 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.07.2012 IN APPEAL NO.126 OF 2012 OF LSGI TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE NO.A8-5427/2012 DATED 18.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOC DATED 24.04.2012 ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, PCB.
EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE SITE LOCATION PLAN APPENDED TO EXT.P9.
EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.11.2012 (EXPANSION).
EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.12.2012.
EXHIBIT P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 14.12.2012 TO EXT.P9.
EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.12.2012.
EXHIBIT P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUGMENT DATED 01.11.2013 IN WP(C) NO.5957.
EXHIBIT P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A8-6601/2013 DATED 09.12.2013.
EXHIBIT P14 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.1089/M3/2012 DATED ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY.
EXHIBIT P15 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2013 IN APPEAL NO.188 OF 2013 OF TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS.
EXHIBIT P16 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2013 IN O.A.NO.171 OF 2013 PASSED BY THE NGT PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI.
EXHIBIT P17: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.08.2012 IN W.P.(C) NO. 19367 OF 2012.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.R2A: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.04.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.R2B: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.08.2013 OF THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL IN O.A. NO. 171/2013.
EXT.R2C: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.11.2013 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND CLIMATE CHANGE.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
W.P. (C) No. 571 of 2014 (V)
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2015.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who initially had a valid Ext.P1 quarrying lease, applied for expansion of his quarrying operations to the adjacent land. The second respondent, however, issued Ext.P13 proceedings to the following effect:
“It is informed to you vide Ref. No.(2) that if you are intending to expand the quarrying operation to 1.9903 hectors, you have to apply for granting of new licence for operating the quarry in 1.9903 hector. Along with the above reference number 4 document you have not produced the new application for the above licence. You have also not produced the permission certificate (permit) of the Panchayath for conducting quarrying in 1.9903 hector. You have to produce the environmental clearance certificate from the MOEF/SIEAA, for any type of quarrying as per the orders of the Green Tribunal.”
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
W.P.(C). No. 571/2015 -2-
the purpose of expanding the quarrying operations.
W.P.(C). No. 571/2015 -3-
imposed in Ext.P13 are not required to be fulfilled. Without taking recourse to either of those options, the petitioner's approach to this Court, in my opinion, is premature.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Grama Panchayath, this Court without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition leaving it open for the petitioner to file necessary objections/explanation regarding Ext.P13 issued by the second respondent, who, in turn, on receipt of those objections, shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv
W.P.(C). No. 571/2015 -4-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging a notice issued for additional information in a licence matter is maintainable when the petitioner has not complied with the notice or filed objections.
Joy Scaria
Meenachil Grama Panchayath
Secretary, Meenachil Grama Panchayath
Dama Seshadri Naidu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
