Allowed

Sovin George v. v.Sreejith

Kerala HC4 Jun 2019Con.Case(C)/877/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition and a contempt petition regarding illegal mining. It affirmed an interim order directing respondents to stop quarrying operations without clearances and directed recovery of dues. It closed the contempt case due to inordinate delay.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to ensure no quarrying is conducted without clearances; direction to recover amounts due; Contempt case closed.

Sovin George Vs v.Sreejith — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No. 9114 of 2012

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SOVIN P.GEORGE, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, PERIYIL HOUSE, KUNDUKAD P.O., PIN-680 028, THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.A.ANOOP

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 DILEESH, S/O.GOPI, NAROTH PARAMBIL HOUSE, THALIYAMPARA DESOM, KUNDUKAD P.O., THRISSUR-680 028.

¶11

2 PRADEESH,

¶12

S/O.LUKOSE, THOPPIL HOUSE, KUNDUKAD P.O., THRISSUR-680 028.

¶13

3 JAYAN

¶14

S/O.PADMANABHAN (LATE), KALAYAKKULAM HOUSE, THALIYAMPARA, KUNDUKAD, THRISSUR-680 028.

¶15

4 BABU

¶16

S/O.PADMANABHAN (LATE), KALAYAKKULAM HOUSE, THALIYAPARA, KUNDUKAD, THRISSUR-680 028.

¶17

5 KESAVAN.P.A S/O.ACHUTHAN, PALATHINAL HOUSE, THALIYAMPARA, KUNDUKAD P.O., THRISSUR-680 028.

¶18

6 LEELA

¶19

W/O.MARKOSE, THOPPIL HOUSE, THALIYAMPARA, KUNDUKAD P.O., THRISSUR-680 028.

¶20

7 BHUSHAN

¶21

S/O.LATE SUKUMARAN, MANGATTUNJALIL HOUSE, PONGANAMKADU, KURICHIKARA P.O., THRISSUR-680 028.

¶22

8 THE GEOLOGIST

¶23

WP(C).No.9114 of 2012 & COC No.877 of 2019 2

¶24

DISTRICT OFFICE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶25

9 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIYYOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680 010.

¶26

10 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680 545.

¶27

11 VILLAGE OFFICER KILLANNOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶28

12 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE THRISSUR-680 003.

¶29

13 SECRETARY

¶30

MULANKUNNATHUKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR-680 581.

¶31

14 SECRETARY KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶32

15 SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS THRISSUR-680 001.

¶33

16 SECRETARY EXPLOSIVES AND MINING DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶34

17 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680 545.

¶35

18 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR-680 001.

¶36

BY ADVS. SRI.N.AJITH R8 TO R12, R15 TO R18 BY SRI. B.VINOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN R13 BY SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN R14 BY SRI. NAVEEN T, SC

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.06.2019, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).877/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

WP(C).No.9114 of 2012 & COC No.877 of 2019 3

¶39

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶40

PRESENT

¶41

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶42

TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶43

Con.Case(C).No. 877 of 2019 IN WP(C). 9114/2012

¶44

AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 9114/2012 DATED 11.04.2012 of HIGHCOURT OF KERALA

¶45

PETITIONER/S:

¶46

SOVIN GEORGE AGED 53 YEARS S/O. GEORGE, PERIYIL HOUSE, KUNDUKAD P.O., THRISSUR 680 028.

¶47

BY ADV. SRI.C.A.ANOOP

¶48

RESPONDENT/S:

¶49

1 V.SREEJITH

¶50

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIYYOOR 680 010.

¶51

2 SELINA SIMON, VILLAGE OFFICER, KILLANNOOR 680 001.

¶52

3 SUDHAKARAN.C., SECRETARY, MULANKUNNATHKAVU PANCHAYATH 680 581.

¶53

4 M. RAGHAVAN, GEOLOGIST, THRISSUR 680 001

¶54

5 T.V. ANUPAMA, DISTRICT, COLLECTOR, THRISSUR 680 001.

¶55

R1, R2, R4 & R5 BY SRI.B VINOD, SR.GP

¶56

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.06.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).9114/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶57

WP(C).No.9114 of 2012 & COC No.877 of 2019 4

¶58

JUDGMENT

¶59

The captioned writ petition as well as the

¶60

Contempt of Court case are materially connected.

¶61

The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

¶62

“(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to stop the illegal mining and quarrying done by the respondents 1 to 7.

¶63

(ii) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and just, in the interest of justice.”

¶64

Whereas in the Contempt of court case, it is contended that, the interim order passed by this court on 11.04.2012, directing the official respondents to see that no illegal quarrying is done in the land in question, was violated.

¶65

The paramount contentions put forth by the petitioner is that, illegal mining activities are carried on by the respondents 1 to 7 without securing

¶66

any sort of clearances from respecive statutory authorities. In spite of service of notice on the respondents, there is no appearance.

¶67

WP(C).No.9114 of 2012 & COC No.877 of 2019 5

¶68

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner

¶69

and learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

¶70

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of, affirming the interim order passed by this court on 11.04.2012. Accordingly

¶71

I do so and there will be a direction to the

¶72

respondents to ensure that no quarrying operations are conducted by respondents 1 to 7 without securing necessary clearances from all the statutory authorities.

¶73

I am also told by learned counsel appearing for

¶74

the petitioner that, Government has not taken any

¶75

steps to recover the amounts due from respondents 1 to

¶76

7 on account of the illegal quarrying carried out by them. If there was any illegal quarrying as is

¶77

contended in the writ petition, there will be a direction to the official respondents to ensure that the amounts due from such persons are recovered, at the earliest possible time and in accordance with law.

¶78

So far as the Contempt of Court case is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that the contempt petition is filed nearly seven years after

¶79

WP(C).No.9114 of 2012 & COC No.877 of 2019 6

¶80

the interim order was passed. Learned Government Pleader also submitted that, even though quarrying operations were undertaken, it was prohibited by the respondents.

¶81

In that view of the matter, I do not think there is any requirement for proceeding in the Contempt of Court case and accordingly, the same is closed.

¶82

Sd/- SHAJI P.CHALY

¶83

JUDGE

¶84

uu 04.06.2019

¶85

WP(C).No.9114 of 2012 & COC No.877 of 2019 7

¶86

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9114/2012

¶87

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶88

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.07.2011 BEFORE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE VIGILANCE, THRISSUR NUMBERED AS C.M.P.950/2011
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.09.2011 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE VIGILANCE, THRISSUR IN C.M.P.950/2011.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE CORRESPONDENCE DATED 29.02.2011 FROM THE THAHAZILDAR, THRISSUR UNDER R.T.I.ACT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE CORRESPONDENCE DATED 30.12.2009 ISSUED BY 8TH RESPONDENT TO DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 05.05.2010 ISSUED BY GEOLOGIST, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18.06.2010 ISSUED BY GEOLOGIST & PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMARCATION LAND REGISTER WITH RESPECT TO SURVEY NO.1281 OF KILLANNOOR VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 31.12.2011 UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27.01.2012 ISSUED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIYYOOR.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.7.2011 SENT BY VILLAGE OFFICER TO SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIYYUR.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER REGARDING ILLEGAL QUARRIES.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, DATED 30.1.2012 STATING THE NAME AND ADDRESS

¶89

WP(C).No.9114 of 2012 & COC No.877 of 2019 8

¶90

OF THE QUARRY OWNERS THOSE WHO ARE CONDUCTING ILLEGAL QUARRIES.

¶91

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE SECRETARY OF MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 20.3.2012.

¶92

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶93

EXHIBIT R13(a) TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.A5/1982/2011 ISSUED BY SECRETARY, MULANKUNNATHUKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 31.08.2011

¶94

EXHIBIT R13(b) TRUE COPY OF LETTER ADDRESSED TO DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 16.09.2011

¶95

EXHIBIT R13(c) TRUE COPY OF LETTER ADDRESSED TO DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH DATED 16.09.2011

¶96

APPENDIX OF Con.Case(C) 877/2019

¶97

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶98

ANNEXURE A THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED IN 11/4/2012.

¶99

ANNEXURE B THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED IN 21/2/2019.

Sovin George v. v.Sreejith

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sovin George v. v.Sreejith

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

Babulal.G Vs Samson and Sons Builders & Developers (P) Ltd.

T.H.Yousef Vs the State of Kerala

Premil Vs Dr.G.P.Padmakumar

Dr.P.P.Bhaskaran, Vs Kerala State Legal Service Authority

M/S.Lurdh Matha Constructions, Vs Superintendng Engineer

Lidiya Thomas, Vs the Regional Officer