Disposed

Shamsudeen T.A v. the District Collector

Kerala HC24 May 2016WP(C)/5829/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of the writ petition filed by a brick industry proprietor against municipal actions to close the industry. The court directed the petitioner to approach the Geologist for O(A) Forms regarding the transport of already manufactured bricks, without adjudicating on the industry's future functioning or permissions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to approach the Geologist for O(A) Forms to transport already manufactured bricks, permitting no further manufacturing.

Shamsudeen T.A Vs the District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2016/3RD JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

W.P.(C).No.5829 of 2016 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

SHAMSUDEEN T.A., S/O.LATE ABDUL KAREEM, MEN'S HOSTEL ROAD, ARALIKADAVU, AMBATTUPALAYAM, CHITTUR COLLEGE PO, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.

¶9

SRI.LIJU. M.P

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶11

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶12

THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, TOWN BUS STAND COMPLEX, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶13

CHITTUR THATHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 101, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.

¶14

THE SECRETARY, CHITTUR THATHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 101.

¶15

THE HEALTH INSPECTOR-GRADE II, CHITTUR THATHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 101.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.K.SHERIN. R3 & R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN R3 & R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.V.N.HARIDAS

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.5829 of 2016 (C)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES ON 3-8-2007.

¶22

P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO.2905/2008 OF SRO, CHITTUR.

¶23

P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DT 3-9-2008 ISSUED FOR THE PERIOD 2008-09 THE RESPONDENT NO.3.

¶24

P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 FOR THE PERIOD 2009-2010.

¶25

P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 FOR THE PERIOD 2011-2012.

¶26

P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3.

¶27

P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO.3685/2012 OF SRO, CHITTUR.

¶28

P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 1-12-2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3.

¶29

P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 3-12-2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3

¶30

P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 4-12-2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3

¶31

P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 11-12-2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3

¶32

P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 15-12-2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2

¶33

P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 28-12-2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2

¶34

P14 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 7-1-2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.1.

¶35

P15 : TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING COMMUNICATION MADE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DT 14-1-2016 ON ACCOUNT OF EXT P14

¶36

P16 : TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ON 12-1-2016.

¶37

WP(C).No.5829 of 2016 (C)

¶38

- 2 -

¶39

P17 : TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY HOLDER ON 16-1-2016.

¶40

P18 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.

¶41

P19 : TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.

¶42

P20 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT 21-1-2016 SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE TAHASILDAR.

¶43

P21 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT 25-1-2016 SUBMITTED BY THE TAHASILDAR TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN.

¶44

P22 : TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED AND ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 5 ON 9-2-2016

¶45

P23 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT 11-2-2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.3.

¶46

P24 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED ON SUBMITTING EXT P23 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3.

¶47

P25 : TRUE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE BATH ROOMS FITTED WITH CLOSET.

¶48

P26 : TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE WELLS.

¶49

P27 : TRUE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE HEAP OF EARCH UNLOADED AT THE SITE.

¶50

P28 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR LICENCE DATED 26.02.2016, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.3 [PRODUCED ALONG WITH I.A.NO.2860 OF 2016].

¶51

P28 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.4.3.2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 IN THE ABOVE CASE [PRODUCED ALONG WITH I.A.NO.OF 2016].

¶52

P29 : TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.4 BY THE PETITIONER.

¶53

P30 : TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LAST KILN, IN WHICH THE BURNED BRICKS ARE PUT AS THE OUTER LAYER.

¶54

P31 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.20.4.2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4.

¶55

P32 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.3.5.2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4.

¶56

WP(C).No.5829 of 2016 (C)

¶57

¶58

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶59

R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT.27.02.2013 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 & 4.

¶60

R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DT.20.1.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶61

R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.3.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.

¶62

R3(d) PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE SHEDS AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTIONS.

¶63

Vku/-

¶64

[ true copy ]

¶65

K. Vinod Chandran, J -------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.5829 of 2016-C

¶66

¶67

Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2016

¶68

JUDGMENT

¶69

The petitioner is the Proprietor of an industry which

¶70

was carrying on the construction of bricks under a licence issued by the Department of Industries, Government of Kerala as per Exhibit P1 dated 03.08.2007. While the industry was being carried on, the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 was superseded in the year 2015; which Rules mandated such industries to obtain environmental clearance certificate, since the nature of the activity carried on would require quarrying of earth. The petitioner is said to have filed an application before the District Collector, at Exhibit P14. Without considering the said application, it is contended in the writ petition, the respondent-Municipality has taken proceedings to close down the industry as such. The challenge made is against the action initiated by the 3^rd respondent-Municipality.

¶71

WP(C) No.5829 of 2016 - 2 -

¶72

The 3^rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit,

¶73

contending that the petitioner does not have a licence for carrying on the industry since 2013. The Municipality also has not renewed the licence already granted, because the petitioner did not have the requisite permissions under the various enactments and also since

¶74

the Council of the Municipality took a decision not to permit any quarrying in the area. It is specifically submitted that the area where the petitioner is carrying on the industry was orginally a paddy land and is adjacent to the Chittur river. Fearing that the quarrying carried on by the industry would result in disturbance of ecological balance and depletion of drinking and ground water; the Council has taken a decision not to permit any such industry in the area.

¶75

The District Collector, before whom Exhibit P14 has been filed, is bereft of jurisdiction. As of now, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner does not have the necessary permissions under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 to carry on the activity of brick manufacturing. The petitioner also confines his relief to the burning of bricks already excavated and transportation

¶76

WP(C) No.5829 of 2016 - 3 -

¶77

of the same for sale. While the writ petition was pending, the petitioner had approached this Court with an Interlocutory Application seeking that he be permitted to burn the already excavated bricks and the same was granted as per order dated 29.02.2016. It was also specifically directed that the petitioner shall

¶78

not carry on any further manufacture, after the bricks already excavated have been burned.

¶79

The petitioner had approached the Municipality with the interim order of this court and the Municipality had also permitted carrying on such activity initially for a period of twenty days by Exhibit P28 [produced along with I.A.No.4806 of 2016] and further extended by three weeks and one week respectively as per orders at Exhibits P31 and P32. The petitioner contends that the said activity had to be carried on for a few more days to complete

¶80

the manufacture of the already excavated earth. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality would categorically submit that its has been informed that the entire bricks excavated were burnt and there is no reason why the petitioner should be

¶81

WP(C) No.5829 of 2016 - 4 -

¶82

allowed to carry on any further manufacturing activity.

¶83

In the circumstances detailed, what is required would

¶84

only be the transport of the manufactured bricks, which alone is the request of the petitioner as of now. For the purpose of transportation, the petitioner has to approach the 2^nd respondent under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules and obtain O(A) Forms, which the petitioner would be entitled to do. The 2^nd respondent, on such application being filed, shall conduct a site inspection and issue O (A) Forms as provided under the Rules and ensure that only the already manufactured bricks are transported. The writ petition, hence, is disposed of with the above direction and it is made clear that this Court has not looked into the conflicting contentions taken by the petitioner and the Municipality as to the further funtioning of the industry, since admittedly the petitioner

¶85

does not have any licence or permissions as required under the various enactments, including the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The petitioner could definitely approach the appropriate authorities, in accordance with law.

¶86

WP(C) No.5829 of 2016

¶87

¶88

Writ Petition disposed of leaving open the contention of

¶89

either parties as to the further functioning of the industry, which it is made clear can only be after obtaining all licences and permissions

¶90

in accordance with law. Parties are left to suffer their respective

¶91

costs.

¶92

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶93

vku/-

¶94

[ true copy ]

Shamsudeen T.A v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamsudeen T.A v. the 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

P.Harilal Vs M.G.University

Mohammed Vs State of Kerala

Pandaloor Plantations Pvt.Ltd Vs Secy.Plantation Labour Union(Citu)

H. Viswanath Vs M. Nizarudheen

K.Sathyarajan Vs the Corporation of Cochin

Kuttappan P. Vs Kalpetta Municipality