Dismissed

Muhammed Iqbal v. Ambika Pappu

Kerala HC3 Mar 2016WA/1310/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Full bench of the Kerala High Court heard a writ appeal where the appellant challenged a direction to close quarry operations. The court dismissed the appeal, leaving the appellant free to apply for necessary licenses under new rules while clarifying no opinion on entitlement was formed.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; the appellant is permitted to apply for licenses under new statutory rules.

Muhammed Iqbal Vs Ambika Pappu — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2016/13TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WA. No.1310 of 2010 ( )

¶6

APPELLANT(S)/5TH RESPONDENT:

¶7

MUHAMMED IQBAL, THEMALI PARAMBIL, MAMBRA P.O, ERNAKULAM, REPRESETNED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, JOHN, S/O.M.THOMAS, RESIDING AT ANGAMALY.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SMT.ANIES MATHEW SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN W.P:

¶10

1. AMBIKA PAPPU, W/O.PAPPU, APPATHI HOUSE, KARUKUTTY P.O, MAMBRA, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

2. AYYAPPAN,S/O.RAMAN, APPATHI HOUSE KARUKUTTY P.O, MAMBRA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

3. RAJESH,S/O.KUTTAPPAN, NADUVATH HOUSE, KARUKUTTY P.O, MAMBRA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

5. GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT MINING AND GEOLOGY OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

6. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

¶16

ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARAKKADAVU, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶17

7. PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARAKKADAVU, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶18

R6 BY ADV.SRI.M.AJAY, SC, R7 BY ADVS. SRI.S.GOPINATHAN SRI.JOHNSON ABRAHAM SRI.NELSON ABRAHAM

¶19

.....2/-

¶20

WA. No.1310 of 2010 ( )

¶21

:2:

¶22

BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

KRJ

¶25

WA. No.1310 of 2010 ( )

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:-

¶28

ANNEX.-A:- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 6.3.2009 FOR LICENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶29

ANNEX.-B:- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19.2.2010 FOR LICENCE SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT TO PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶30

ANNEX.-C:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.2.2010 NO.A4-1256/10 SENT TO THE APPLICANT BY PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶31

ANNEX.-D:- TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT DATED 9.9.2009 ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT.

¶32

ANNEX.-E:- TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT NO.PCB/RO-EKM/ICO-QR 154/F/2008 DATED 4.6.2008 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.

¶33

ANNEX.-F:- TRUE COPY OF LICENCE NO.E/SC/72/952 (E41742) DATED 5.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVE TO THE APPELLANT.

¶34

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:-NIL

KRJ

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J &

¶39

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J

¶40

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A No.1310 of 2010

¶41

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3^rd day of March, 2016

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

Ashok Bhushan, CJ

¶44

Heard.

¶45

This writ appeal has been filed against the judgment dated

¶46

17.2.2010 in W.P(C) No.6485 of 2009. The respondents to this appeal were the petitioners who had filed the writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to ensure that quarrying activities of the 5^th respondent is stopped forthwith.

¶47

Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed respondents 1 to 4 to forthwith close the quarry conducted by the 5^th respondent. The judgment of the learned Single Judge gives various reasons for allowing the writ petition. The 5^th respondent to the writ petition is in appeal against the said judgment.

¶48

-:2:-

¶49

WA.1310/10

¶50

Learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the findings recorded in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in stopping the appellant from carrying out quarrying operations. His only apprehension is that even if the appellant makes an application in accordance with the new statutory rules, the judgment of the learned Single Judge may not be treated as a judgment denying any further right to the appellant to apply or seek appropriate licenses/ permissions.

¶51

The judgment of the learned Single Judge being not challenged on merits, we are of the view that the appeal is to be dismissed. We further clarify that this, however, does not preclude the appellant to make an application in accordance with the statutory rules for such licenses/permission as may be required by law. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to the entitlement of the appellant and it is for the statutory authorities to look into and take appropriate decision.

¶52

-:3:-

¶53

WA.1310/10

¶54

With the above observations, the writ appeal is dismissed.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶59

krj.3/3/16

Muhammed Iqbal v. Ambika Pappu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Iqbal v. Ambika Pappu

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

Ramapuram Grama Panchayat Vs St.Basil Industries India (P) Limited

T.S. Abdul Khader Vs Shajimon B

S.Prasanth and Anor Vs State of Kerala and Others

Omana C.K. Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs S.Sasidharan Pillai

Union of India Vs v.Parameswaran