This Court stayed the direction to issue transportation passes, leaving liberty to the petitioner to respond to discrepancies noted by the Geologist in her application for earth removal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1941
WP(C).No.5903 OF 2019(K)
PETITIONER:
LEELAMMA THOMAS AGED 62 YEARS
W/O. THOMAS, PARAVILAPUTHENVEEDU (THEKKEMURUPPEL), THONNIMALA, PERINGANADU, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)
RESPONDENTS:
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
GP K.J. MANURAJ, SC ADV.K.SHAJ AND RENJITH GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.5903 OF 2019(K)
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking that the 4th respondent-Geologist be directed to issue her sufficient number of transportation passes to remove ordinary earth, so as to enable her to construct a building in her property, based on Ext.P1 Development Permit. The petitioner says that even though she has made an application for this purpose before the Geologist, namely Ext.P2, the same has not been considered by the said Authority until now. She, therefore, prays that Ext.P2 be directed to be taken up and disposed of at the earliest.
“3. It is submitted that this respondent received a petition signed by Smt.Leelamma Thomas, Paravila Puthen Veedu, Peringanad, Adoor for grant of transit passes for removal of ordinary earth from land in Block No.10 Re.Sruvey No.45/2-1, 45/2-2, 45/2-3 of Peringanad Village, Adoor Taluk. This application was dated 28th July 2018 and the same was received in the office on 8th August 2018. While scrutinizing the application it was observed that the applicant did not submit copy of building permit. Moreover, there is disparity in the quantity mentioned in the Development Permit and
WP(C).No.5903 OF 2019(K)
3
Development Plan ie., 542.20 Cubic meters in Development Permit and 485.56 Cubic meters in Development Plan. It was also observed that instead of applicant someone else has signed the application as well as the Annexures. The signature is not matching with that in the application made by the petitioner for obtaining PAN card. The signature in Exhibit P1 Development Plan and Exhibit P2 application is totally different. A true copy of the application of PAN card is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R4(a). The same was communicated to the petitioner on 05.03.2019. A true copy of the communication dated 05.03.2019 which is given to the petitioner is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R4(b). In the above circumstances, petitioner's Exhibit P2 application cannot be considered by the respondent.”
therefore, Ext.P2 application cannot be now considered by the Geologist, since the petitioner has not yet responded to Ext.R4(b) communication issued to her. He says that apart from this, the petitioner has sought to remove the earth merely on the basis of the Development Plan and without producing a Building Permit and therefore, that the Geologist will not be in a position to consider her application on its merits.
4. When I consider the afore submissions, it is without
doubt that the petitioner’s application has already been taken note of by the Geologist and that he has issued a communication
WP(C).No.5903 OF 2019(K)
4
to her, namely Ext.R4(b). Therefore, unless the petitioner is able to convince the said Authority, as to the matters that are reflected in Ext.R4(b), it will not be proper or prudent for this Court to direct the said Authority to issue the transportation passes, as has been prayed for in Ext.P2.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition, leaving liberty to the petitioner to make suitable response to Ext.R4(b) within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and on receipt of the same, the Geologist will hear her and then issue final orders on Ext.P2 as early as possible, but not later
than two months from the date when the reply from the petitioner is required.
I make it clear that I have not considered any of the contentions of the parties on its merits and that the Geologist will be at liberty to take an apposite decision on Ext.P2 taking note of all germane and relevant inputs.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
nak
JUDGE
WP(C).No.5903 OF 2019(K)
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ALONG WITH APPROVED BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28.7.2018
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R4(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION PAN CARD EXHIBIT R4(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 05.03.2019
//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of in the absence of the petitioner's response to the authority's communication questioning discrepancies in the application.
Whether the court should direct the authority to issue transportation passes without the applicant resolving the apparent discrepancies noted by the authority.
LeelammaThomas
StateOfKerala
DirectorMiningAndGeology
DistrictCollectorPathanamthitta
SeniorGeologistMiningAndGeology
AdoorMunicipality
DevanRamachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
