Dismissed

Jose.O.M. v. Village Officer

Kerala HC6 Oct 2016WP(C)/1513/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging a prohibitory order issued against a petitioner for illegal quarrying beyond demarcated limits. The Court held that since the quarrying permit had expired prior to the filing, the order could not be set aside, and any renewal requires a fresh application under the MMDR Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the prohibitory order was not set aside; respondents were directed to proceed in accordance with the law if illegal quarrying was conducted.

Jose.O.M. Vs Village Officer — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/14TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

W.P(C).No.1513 of 2013 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

JOSE.O.M., S/O.MATHAI, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT OLICKAL HOUSE, ULLANADU P.O., BHARANANGANAM, BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. VILLAGE OFFICER, BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686578.

¶11

2. THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001.

¶12

3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT OFFICE, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, NAGAMBADOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001.

¶13

4. BHARANANGANAM GRAMAPANCHAYAT COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, GRAMAPANCHAYAT OFFICE, BHARANANGANAM, MEENACHIL TALUK, PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686578.

¶14

5. THE SECRETARY, BHARANANGANAM GRAMAPANCHAYAT, GRAMAPANCHAYAT OFFICE, BHARANANGANAM, MEENACHIL TALUK, PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686578.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY. R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI. T.NAVEEN. R4 & 5 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.BALAKRISHNAN (KODIYURA) R4 & 5 BY ADV. SRI.PRAKASH C. VADAKKAN. J, SC.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-102016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶17

W.P.(C) NO.1513 OF 2013-L

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:-

¶20

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

¶21

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENCE NO.E/SC/KC/22/883 DT.22-5-2007.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGY & MINING DEPARTMENT DT.22-12-2011.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CHELAN APPLICATION DT.14-12-2012.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT DT.14-12-2012.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DT.21-8-2012.

¶26

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE FROM THE BHARANANGANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH DT.28-4-2012.

¶27

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1886/87 OF SRO PALAI DT.8-7-1987.

¶28

EXHIBIT P7(a): TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT.11-6-2002 REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRIVATE ROAD.

¶29

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER ISSUED BY THE BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE OFFICER DT.5-1-2013.

¶30

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGY & MINING DEPARTMENT DATED 16.1.2013.

¶31

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS/ANNEXURES:-

¶32

EXHIBIT R1(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE BHARANANGANAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT R1(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE ASSET REGISTER.
EXHIBIT R1(c)	TRUE COP[Y OF THE SITE PLAN.
EXHIBIT R2(a)	COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B2-7603/2012 DATED 17.01.2013 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R2(b)	COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2128/DOY/MC/2012 DATED 11.03.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶33

ANNEXURE R3-1:	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED SITE PLAN ISSUED BY THE
	VILLAGE OFFICER AND SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶34

W.P.(C) NO.1513 OF 2013-L

¶35

- 2 -

¶36

EXHIBIT R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 17.6.2006. EXHIBIT R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 02.07.2010. EXHIBIT R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED TO DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 19.12.2012. EXHIBIT R4(d) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE PANCHAYATH DIRECTOR DATED 22.1.2011. EXHIBIT R4(e) TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT OF 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 6.1.2012. EXHIBIT R4(f) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED TO MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT R4(g) TRUE COPY OF THE ASSETS REGISTER OF THE BHARANANGANAM PANCHAYATH. Vku/[ true copy]

¶37

K. Vinod Chandran, J

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C) No.1513 of 2013-L

¶40

---------------------------------------Dated this the 06^th day of October, 2016

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

The petitioner in the above writ petition challenge Exhibit P8 dated 05.01.2013, which is a stop memo issued by the Village Officer on the ground that quarrying has been conducted beyond the area demarcated by the Department. The petitioner was directed to file his objections with respect to Exhibit P8.

¶43

The quarrying permit, on the basis of which the application was filed, is Exhibit P2; which expired on 22.12.2012, long before the writ petition was filed. The allegation raised is also with respect to the quarrying having been conducted beyond the demarcated area.

¶44

The counter affidavit of the official respondents indicates that no renewal of the permit was granted and the prohibitory order clearly indicates that objections, if any, can be filed before the Tahsildar. It is also the specific contention of the said respondents that the mining plan, accompanying the permit,

¶45

WP(C) No.1513 of 2013 - 2 -

¶46

demarcated clearly the quarrying area and the petitioner had quarried beyond such demarcation made in the site plan.

¶47

The Panchayat in its counter affidavit contends that in 2006 the petitioner obtained a No Objection Certificate from Fire and

¶48

Rescue Services for keeping 5 Kgs. of explosives for digging pond and misusing the permission, illegal granite quarry was operated. However, it is pointed out that D&O Licence has been issued at Exhibit P6, on the basis of Exhibit P2 permit.

¶49

The prayers in the writ petition are to quash the prohibitory order and to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider Exhibit P4 application for renewal of permit.

¶50

The licence having expired, there is no reason why the prohibitory order should be set aside. As to the application for renewal, the same was filed in the year 2012 and if at all an application has to be made now after three years, the petitioner would have to make a fresh application in accordance with the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 [for brevity “MMDR Act”] and the Rules framed thereunder as also the notifications issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and

¶51

WP(C) No.1513 of 2013 - 3 -

¶52

the Rules framed thereunder; after getting an Environmental Clearance [for brevity “EC”] from the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA).

¶53

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be

¶54

dismissed, reserving the right of the respondents 1 and 2 to proceed in accordance with the MMDR Act and the Rules framed thereunder

¶55

if any illegal quarrying has been conducted by the petitioner. Ordered accordingly; directing the parties to suffer their respective costs.

¶56

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶57

vku/-

¶58

[ true copy ]

Jose.O.M. v. Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose.O.M. v. Village Officer

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. Sarojini Vs Krishnakumar N.K.

L.Mohanan Vs the City Corporation of Tvm

M.v.Mathai Vs State of Kerala & Ors.

T.a.Majeed Vs Corporation of Cochin

C.V. Paul & Anr. Vs State of Kerala and Ors.

Mohammed Ali Vs Manjeshwar Grama Panchayat