Disposed

Hamsa.O.v. v. the District Collector

Kerala HC10 Jul 2018WP(C)/3227/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition alleging illegal quarrying by respondents 7 and 8 despite pending complaints, the High Court directed the District Collector to consider the complaint within two months after affording an opportunity of hearing to all interested parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Collector to consider the pending complaint after affording opportunity of hearing to all parties within two months.

Hamsa.O.v. Vs the District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3227 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

HAMSA.O.V. S/O. KUNHIMUTTI KURIKKAL, ORAVAMPURATH VALIYATHODIYIL HOUSE, KOLAPARAMBA P.O. - 676 522, MANJERI (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶11

COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505.

¶12

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

¶13

PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322.

¶14

3. THE TAHSILDAR, ERANAD TALUK OFFICE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 121.

¶15

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PANDIKKAD VILLAGE OFFICE, PANDIKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM

¶16

DISTRICT - 676 521.

¶17

5. THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, 22ND MILE,

¶18

MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 121.

¶19

6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

¶20

MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 505.

¶21

7. SALEEM,

¶22

KATTUKANDATHIL HOUSE, KOLAPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM

¶23

DISTRICT - 676 522.

¶24

8. FAVAS,

¶25

KATTUKANDATHIL HOUSE, KOLAPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM

¶26

DISTRICT - 676 522,

¶27

9. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA ROAD, KUNNUMMAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 322.

¶28

WP(C).No. 3227 of 2018

¶29

10. PANDIKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PANDIKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY - 676 521.

¶30

R1 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. PAUL ABRAHAM R7& R8 BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL R9 BY ADV. SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

WP(C).No. 3227 of 2018 (C)

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶35

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE 27.12.2017.	BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE	PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE BEFORE THE SUB IN	COMPLAINT DATED 21.12.2017 SPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDIKKAD.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT.	COMPLAINT DATED 26.12.2017 WITH
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BEFORE	COMPLAINT DATED 26.12.2017 THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE	RECEIPT DATED 27.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE	POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 27.12.2017.

¶36

RESPONDENTS(S)' EXHIBITS :- NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶41

W.P.(C). No. 3227 OF 2018

¶42

Dated this the 10^th day of July, 2018

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

According to the petitioner, respondents 7 and 8 are conducting an illegal quarry. Even though, petitioner has submitted various complaints before the various statutory authorities, the same are not considered. Seeking to ventilate the grievances, petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 before the first respondent, which is pending consideration. I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of by making appropriate directions to the District Collector.

¶45

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for respondents 7 and 8, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P4, in accordance with law, and attain finality, at the earliest possible, and at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing

¶46

W.P.(C). No. 3227 of 2018 2

¶47

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondents 7 and 8 and all other interested persons.

¶48

I was constrained to issue such a direction, since learned Government Pleader pointed out that, earlier, quarrying operations were conducted, however, at present, no quarrying operations are conducted in the property in question. The same is recorded.

¶49

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

¶50

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY

¶51

DCS

Hamsa.O.v. v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hamsa.O.v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nazar M.A. Vs the Corporation of Kollam

Biju Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Balambika Alias Ambika M. Vs the District Collector

St.George Jacobite Syrian Chapel Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam

Alex v John Vs the District Police Chief

I.P.Elias Vs the Piravom Municipality