Allowed

Aju Paulose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Nov 2019WP(C)/7582/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition directing the Geologist to urgently complete filling of large mining pits left after sand exploitation. Court held statutory obligation rests on the exploiter but Geologist must supervise and act within four months, levying costs or initiating departmental action if necessary.

What did the court decide?

Directed Geologist to complete filling of mining pits within four months of judgment receipt, either through 4th respondent or departmental action, and recover costs if respondent refuses.

Aju Paulose Vs State of Kerala — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.7582 OF 2019(W)

PETITIONER:

AJU PAULOSE

AGED 41 YEARS

S/O.PAULOSE, VADAKKEDATH HOUSE, PADINAREKKARA P.O., VALLAKOM, VAIKOM, PIN- 686146.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.DILEEP VARGHESE SMT.TESMY VARGHEESE

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶13

2 DIRECTOR, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, KESHAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O.- 695004, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

3 GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE, PIN686002, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶15

4 ADDL.R4- JOHN P.T,, AGED 48 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, PARATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHENPALAM, VECHOOR P.O, PIN-686144(ADDL.R4 IMPELADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03.7.2019 IN IA.1/2019)

¶16

5 ADDL.R5- ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VAIKOM(ADDL.R5 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05.11.2019 IN WP(C))

¶17

R4 BY ADV. SMT.ELIZABETH MATHAI IDICULLA R4 BY ADV. SRI.MARTIN D.ALUMKARA R4 BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN IDICULLA ABRAHAM R4 BY ADV. SRI.RACHEL JOSEPH

¶18

SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL-GP

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No.7582 OF 2019(W)

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the 4^th respondent herein has not filled up the large mining pits left after commercial exploitation of sand there-from in spite of the directions in Ext.P8 notice issued by the 3^rd respondent-Geologist.

¶24

The petitioner says that, in fact, Ext.P8 had been issued, based on an earlier directive of the 2^nd respondentDirector of Mining and Geology Department, namely Ext.P7; and alleges that refusal of the Geologist to act further amounts to abdication of duty and therefore, is illegal and unlawful. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the competent Authority be directed to fill up these mines and to recover the cost, including its escalation, from the 4^th respondent.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent initially sought time to file counter pleadings; and then submitted that his client is willing and ready to comply with all the directions in Exts.P7 and P8 orders, but that he has been unable to do so on account of the obstruction caused by the petitioner

¶26

and the other residents of the locality. He says that, if the Geologist and the other Authorities give his client sufficient

¶27

WP(C).No.7582 OF 2019(W)

¶28

¶29

support, he is willing to fill up the mines as per the directions in Ext.P8 without any further delay.

¶30

The learned Government Pleader-Sri.Paul Abraham Vakkanal, submits that since the 4^th respondent did not take any steps pursuant to Ext.P8 order, the Geologist has addressed the Tahsildar to furnish a report indicating the volume of the mining pits and also to ascertain its measurements, so that necessary steps can be taken to fill it up urgently. He says that the Geologist is now awaiting such report from the Tahsildar.

¶31

Even when I hear the learned Government Pleader on the afore lines, it is without doubt that the statutory obligation to fill up these mining pits are squarely on the person who has commercially exploited it and that the Geologist and such other competent Authorities are obligated to supervise such action in terms of law.

¶32

In this case, even though the Director of Mining and Geology had issued Ext.P7, which was followed by Ext.P8 order by the Geologist as early as on 01.10.2018, no action appears to have been taken thereafter for the last more than one year. This

¶33

WP(C).No.7582 OF 2019(W)

¶34

¶35

situation is extremely distressing, to say the least, since any accident that would have happened in the last more than one year on account of the unfilled pits would have created catastrophic consequences and the official Authorities would have been made personally responsible for such. I, therefore, fail to understand the reason for the insocience exhibited by the Geologist and such other officers and am certain that this cannot be now permitted to continue any further.

¶36

Since Ext.P8 is dated 01.10.2018 and the 4^th respondent says that he is willing to fill up the mining pits as per the directions therein, I am certainly of the view that the Geologist must now take immediate action to ensure that this is done and if it is refused to be done by the 4^th respondent, then to take departmental action for such purpose and to recover the entire cost from the said respondent.

¶37

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the Geologist to take immediate action pursuant to Ext.P8, in terms of the observations above and complete filling up of the pits, either through the 4^th respondent or through departmental action, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from

¶38

WP(C).No.7582 OF 2019(W)

¶39

¶40

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

I make it clear that if the 4^th respondent is ready to complete this work and if his allegation, that he is facing obstruction in doing so, is found to be credible, then the Geologist will seek the assistance of the 5^th respondent appropriately, who will thereupon offer all such assistance, to the 4^th respondent so that the work of filling up of the mining pits is completed by him within the time granted herein. The 4^th respondent is also at liberty to bring to the notice of the Geologist any other difficulty that he may face in completing the afore exercise and the said Authority will certainly look into the same and offer apposite solution, as far as practically possible.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

nak

¶46

WP(C).No.7582 OF 2019(W)

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX

¶49

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶50

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY DISTRICT COLLECTER, KOTTAYAM TO 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN KERALA KAUMUDHI DAILY. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF MASS PETITION SUBMITTED BY LOCAL PEOPLE TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, UDAYANAPURAM TO THASILDHAR, VAIKOM TALUK. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C)NO.18602 OF 2018. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO SRI.JOHN P.T.

¶51

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Aju Paulose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aju Paulose v. State of Kerala

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

K. H. Abdul Rasheed, Vs Thirumittacode Grama Panchayath

A.C.George Vs the Corporation of Kochi

Rajeev S. Vs State of Kerala

E.P.Pradeep Vs the Koduvayur Grama Panchayat

Saneesh Kumar, Vs the Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Kamal Vs the District Collector