Jacob George v. Tomy Abraham
Case brief
What is this about?
Review petitioner challenged a High Court direction permitting a quarry owner to remove granite aggregate quarried in FY 2012-13, citing lack of D&O licence. The Court held confiscation under MMDR Act wasn't triggered by Panchayat licence lapse, deemed valid operations existed for some periods, and rejected the review prayer against removal rights.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/26TH ASWINA, 1938
R.P.No.872 of 2016 IN WP(C).23849/2016 (E)
[AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.08.2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.23849 OF 2016-E, OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA]
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/THIRD PARTY SEEKING REVIEW:-
JACOB GEORGE, MAMMARAPALLIL, NARANAMMOOZHY P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 711.
BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL
SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN.
RESPONDENT(S):-
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a lapse in obtaining a D&O Licence under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act can lead to confiscation of minerals under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.
Whether quarrying operations without a Panchayat licence are valid based on deeming provisions when an application was filed but not responded to.
Whether the review petition raising contentions against the direction to remove quarried granite aggregate has any merit.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Jacob George
- respondent
Tomy Abraham
- respondent
The Director, Directorate of Mining and Geology
- respondent
The Geologist, Mining and Geology Department
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court