Partly allowed

Sasikumaran v. Abdurahiman Karattuchali

Kerala HC7 Dec 2020WA/1546/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed the maintainability of composite appeals against interim mining orders. While holding that appeals against unrelated interim orders in the same petition can be combined, the Court found the Single Judge erred in not reviewing the Soil Conservation Officer's adverse report regarding landslide risks before granting permit renewal as interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 1.10.2020 directing renewal of permit is set aside; common order dated 19.11.2020 is left undisturbed.

Sasikumaran Vs Abdurahiman Karattuchali — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶7

WA.No.1546 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) 9764/2020(U) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 IN W.P.(C)9764/2020:

¶10

1 SASIKUMARAN AGED 61 YEARS S/O.CHERIYA KUNJAN, PULIKKALAKKANDI HOUSE, CHEACODE AMSOM AND DESOM, CHEACODE POST, KONDOTTY TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673645.

¶11

2 SUKUMARAN, AGED 44 YEARS

¶12

S/O.BHARATHAN, PULIKKALAKKANDI HOUSE, CHEACODE AMSOM AND DESOM, CHEACODE POST, KONDOTTY TALUK, MALAPPURAM673645.

¶13

3 BHASKARAN, AGED 51 YEARS S/O.VALIYAKUNJAN, PULIKKALAKKANDI HOUSE, CHEACODE AMSOM AND DESOM, CHEACODE POST, KONDOTTY TALUK, MALAPPURAM-673645.

¶14

4 SREENIVASAN, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.RAMANKUTTY, PULIKKALAKKANDI HOUSE, CHEACODE AMSOM AND DESOM, CHEACODE POST, KONDOTTY TALUK, MALAPPURAM673645.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.ABDUL KAREEM SRI.R.ABDUL AHAD

¶16

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN W.P.(C)9764/2020:

¶17

1 ABDURAHIMAN KARATTUCHALI S/O.KUNHAMUTTY HAJI, PANTHALLANCHERY HOUSE, OZHUKOOR P.O., MORAYOOR, MALAPPURAM-673642.

¶18

WA.Nos.1546 & 1580 OF 2020

¶19

¶20

2 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676121.

¶21

3 THE SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICER, DISTRICT SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676121.

¶22

4 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, VELAKKUDI, THIRUVANANTHAUPRAM-695024, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶23

SRI. BABU S NAIR FOR R1, SRI. TEK CHAND, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 AND R3, SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R4

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-12-2020, ALONG WITH WA.1580/2020, THE COURT ON 07-12-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WA.Nos.1546 & 1580 OF 2020

¶26

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶30

¶31

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶32

MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶33

WA.No.1580 OF 2020

¶34

AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) 24078/2020(H) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶35

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶36

MOIDEEN KUTTY M.O., AGED 65 YEARS S/O ASSAIN , MADASSEERI OTTATHINGAL HOUSE, CHEEKODE P.O.,MALAPPURAM-673 645.

¶37

BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.ABDUL KAREEM SRI.R.ABDUL AHAD

¶38

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶39

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶40

2 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, KERALA, VELAKKUDI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶41

3 DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PERINTHALAMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679 322.

¶42

4 KERALA STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY. VIKASBHAVAN P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶43

5 DISTRICT DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION,

¶44

WA.Nos.1546 & 1580 OF 2020

¶45

¶46

MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶47

6 DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, MINI CIVIL STATION, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM-676 121.

¶48

7 NATIONAL CENTRE FOR EARTH SCIENCE STUDIES, AKKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶49

8 ABDURAHIMAN KARATTUCHALI, AGED 60 YEARS S/O KUNHAMUTTY HAJI, PANTHALLANCHERY HOUSE, OZHUKOOR P.O., MORAYOOR, MALAPPURAM-673 642.

¶50

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-12-2020, ALONG WITH WA.1546/2020, THE COURT ON 07-12-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

WA.Nos.1546 & 1580 OF 2020

¶52

¶53

JUDGMENT

¶54

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶55

Captioned writ appeals are filed by respondents 3 to 6 in W.P.(C) No.9764/2020 and petitioner in W.P.(C) No.24078/2020 challenging the interim orders passed by the learned single Judge dated 1.10.2020 and 19.11.2020. The order dated 19.11.2020 is a common order passed in both the writ petitions. Since the subject matter in the appeals relate to quarrying permit issued to the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9764/2020 and respondent 1 and 8 in the appeals respectively, we have heard them together and proposed to pass this common judgment.

¶56

W.P.(C) No.9764/2020 is filed by a quarry operator namely Abdurehiman seeking to quash Ext.P9 order passed by the Senior Geologist, District Office Mining & Geology department, Manjeri, Malappuram District dated 2.3.2020, whereby it is stated that environmental clearance was issued to the writ petitioner to the area covered by the application on 26.4.2018, and thereafter in 2018 and 2019 land sliding and land slipping have been occurred in Malappuram District. So also it is stated that on examination of the complaint submitted by the local residents including the Pulikkalakandy Harijan Colony people and on inspection of the site, it is convinced that there are

¶57

WA.Nos.1546 & 1580 OF 2020

¶58

¶59

seepages on the back side of the houses of residents of the valley of hillock and if mining is conducted on the hillock area, it will become unstable and

¶60

there are high possibilities of natural calamities. Therefore, it is stated that that is the reason why the permit was refused as per reference No.5 letter dated 24.12.2019.

¶61

It is further stated that, during the inspection conducted on 12.12.2019, it is convinced that the condition of the area was not like that of the time when the environmental clearance was issued and also the District Collector reported before the High Court of Kerala that there is no possibility of land sliding and there is no need for further site inspection. It is also stated that as seepages are seen in the area, still the area is under the threat of landslide if the laterite mining is conducted and hence issuance of a mining permit is not possible. Accordingly the application submitted by the writ petitioner dated 17.6.2019 for laterite extraction permit is refused. Apparently the said order was passed by the Senior Geologist on the basis of the direction issued by a writ court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.141/2020 dated 7.1.2020. The 2^nd relief sought for in the writ petition by quarry owner is a writ of mandamus commanding the District Geologist i.e., the 1^st respondent in the writ petition, to renew the quarrying permit applied by him upon reconsidering Ext.P4 application and Ext.P8 submission made by the writ petitioner, after obtaining a report from the 2^nd respondent Soil Conservation Officer. Interim relief sought for therein was a direction to the District

¶62

WA.Nos.1546 & 1580 OF 2020

¶63

¶64

Geologist - 1^st respondent, to renew the quarrying permit to the petitioner as applied by him, upon reconsidering Exts.P4 & P8 after obtaining a report from the Soil Conservation Officer, the 2^nd respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition. In the said writ petition, appellants in W.A No.1546/2020 were impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 6 after filing of the writ petition.

¶65

On the other hand W.P.(C) No.24078/2020 leading to W.A No.1580/2020 was filed by a permanent resident of Cheekode Grama Panchayat in Kondotty Taluk, Malappuram District, who is said to be the convenor of an unregistered association viz.,'Cheekode Mepatta Mala Samyuktha Samrakshana Samithi' formed by the village people of Cheekode allegedly for protecting Mepatta Mala hills from illegal mining and quarrying activities of the mining mafia, who has sought for quashing environmental clearance and quarrying permit granted to the writ petitioner in the connected writ petition, who is the 8^th respondent in the writ petition and the appeal.

¶66

The learned Single Judge as per the interim order dated 1.10.2020, taking note of the observation of the State Disaster Management Authority, which inspected the area, ordered that the petitioner can be permitted to carry out the mining strictly following the mining plan therefore that the quarry owner is entitled to renewal of quarrying permit subject to safeguarding the interest of the local residents as well as ensuring that the conditions in the mining plan are strictly followed by the quarry owner, and accordingly directed the Geologist to renew the permit without any delay and at any rate within a

¶67

WA.Nos.1546 & 1580 OF 2020

¶68

¶69

period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. That apart an Advocate Commissioner was also appointed to conduct inspection in the presence of the Geologist and directed to file a report indicating the grievances of the local residents and the measures that could be possibly taken by the writ petitioner to redress their grievances in the light of the issue highlighted before the writ court.

¶70

So far as the common interim order in the writ petitions dated 19.11.2020 is concerned, it was passed by the writ court taking note of the fact that there are protests from local people against the mining of laterite stone and there are certain issues in regard to deviation from the mining plan. It was also observed thereunder that if the mining had resulted in a deprivation of source of water and drinking water to the locals, certainly it is a serious issue to be taken note and the court cannot be unmindful on the consequences of such mining and further that the court cannot simply put the entire issues in the regulatory frame of quarrying activity and remain oblivious to the right of locals to have source of water. Having found so the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority was suo motu impleaded in W.P.(C) No.9764/2020 and accordingly, directed the said authority to constitute a team and inspect the site of mining covered by the mining plan and report before the court as to the veracity of the report before the court that the source of the drinking water is depleted consequent upon the mining and any other related ecological and environmental impact. In the meanwhile

¶71

WA.Nos.1546 & 1580 OF 2020

¶72

¶73

the Geologist is directed to issue transit permit to the quarry operator for transporting of laterite stone legally removed based on the permit issued and the royalty paid by the petitioner. Other directions are also issued therein.

¶74

The paramount contention advanced in the writ appeals is that the learned Single Judge failed to take note of the report submitted by the Soil Conservation Officer, Manjeri i.e., the 2^nd respondent in W.P(C) No.9764/2020, filed by the quarry operator in which the 2nd main relief sought for, is to renew the quarrying permit after securing a report from the said officer. The report of said officer reads thus:

¶75

“REPORT FILED BY SOUDA NALAKATH, SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICER, MANJERI UNDER DISTRICT SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN THE ABOVE MATTER

¶76

I, Souda Nalakath, Soil conservation officer, Manjeri visited the site Survey No 139/1 along with the first respondent, The District Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, District Office, Manjeri where Sri AbdulRahiman Karattuchali S/o. ..,Panthallanchery House,Ozhukur.P.O. applied for renewal of quarrying permission, 19-05-2020 11:30 am.

¶77

For accurate technical expertise of the soil prevailing in the site, inspection was made jointly with Smt. Mariamma K. George, The District soil conservation officer, Malappuram and Sri. Abdul Hameed, Assistant Director of Soil Survey, Malappuram.

¶78

The proposed mining/quarrying area is located in Ward No.9 of Cheekode Grama panchayath in Cheekode Village in Kondotty taluk of Malappuram District.

¶79

WA.Nos.1546 & 1580 OF 2020

¶80

¶81

Geo reference of the area is:

¶82

Latitude : 11⁰ 13”20”

¶83

Longitude : 75⁰ 59”24”

¶84

The average elevation of the area is 125 m from MSL

¶85

The soil type of the area is Hard laterite (Petro Plinthite) and belongs to Pazhamallur series.

¶86

Soils are shallow with a solum thickness of less than 50cm and occur as a veneer over the hard laterite. Exposed Petroplinthite with sparse vegetation is frequented in the landscape. Surface layer is reddish brown to yellowish red, gravelly loam to gravelly clay loam and about 15-20 cm thick. Soils are severely eroded excessively drained with moderately rapid permeability

¶87

The proposed quarrying site falls in Moderate hazard zone as per the Landslide hazard zonation map prepared by KSDMA (Kerala State Disaster Management Authority) and National Centre for Earth Science Studies NCESS).

¶88

Observations:

¶89

Unscientific mining practices are noticed in adjacent areas.

¶90

There is no stagnation/retention of water in the already quarried area of the site.

¶91

Presence of deep cutting of approximate height 20-25m noticed 30 m away from the North east side of the mining site. Foothill area covered with Vegetation. Any physical disturbance in uphill may be a hazard in future.

¶92

Presence of laterite cappings noticed in mining site and laterite boulders were noticed in North East slope of hill which may cause easy fall if any physical disturbance occur (Photo appended)

¶93

A colony named Pulikalakandi with inhabitants of 34 families present in the north east slope. On local enquiry, it is understood that during the flood period 2018 the inhabitants of this colony was evacuated by revenue

¶94

WA.Nos.1546 & 1580 OF 2020

¶95

¶96

authorities and they moved to their relative houses. During August 2019 they voluntarily were shifted to AMLP school, Vavoor at Vettupara.

¶97

Water seeps in many spots inside the Pulikalakandi colony area which indicate sub surface flow beneath the soil stratum.

¶98

Accumulation of water of 60cm depth below ground level is noticed in area which indicate excessive storage of water in that area. The inhabitants of colony uses the accumulated water by gravity flow. This is available through out the year.

¶99

water collection units were noticed inside colony area from there 25 families using water for their daily requirements. (Photo appended)

¶100

Conclusion

¶101

Mining/ quarrying is not recommended in the proposed site due to the following reasons.

¶102

The proposed Mining/quarrying site in the mining plan falls in the moderate hazard zone as per Landslide hazard zonation map prepared by KSDMA (Kerala State Disaster Management Authority) and National Centre for Earth Science Studies ( NCESS). There is chance of occurrence of landslides/landslips during continuous and heavy rainfall.

¶103

Soils are shallow with a solum thickness of less than 50cm and occur as a veneer over the hard laterite. Hence chance of sliding is more in case of accumulation of water

¶104

Water seeps in many spots inside the Pulikalakandi colony area and accumulation of water in 60cm depth below ground level is noticed even in the summer months. This indicates the excessive storage of water in that area.

¶105

Presence of colony inhabited 34 families in foot hill. 25 families of colony uses the accumulated water by gravity flow for their daily requirements throughout the year. Any physical disturbance in uphill and blockage of the seepage will affect availability of water.

¶106

WA.Nos.1546 & 1580 OF 2020

¶107

¶108

Presence of laterite boulders is noticed in the North East slope of the hill which may cause easy fall if any physical disturbance and continuous and heavy rainfall occur.”

¶109

In the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner it was reported, that the total extent of the writ petitioners property is 4.90 acres and the environmental clearance obtained for 2.45 acres of the total land, that the lay and nature of the property is sloppy towards north eastern side of the hill and there is a vertical cliff on the northern end of the property of the petitioner and could find a deep fracture of earth in the vertical cliff and further that there are people residing in the valley of the hillock in question. Anyhow the conclusion of the Advocate Commissioner shows that the Geologist should ensure that mining activity strictly follows the mining plan and ensure that each mining pit is restored without allowing water logging. It is also mentioned therein that the threat of landslide can be ascertained only after a detailed study as mentioned by the officials and further that the rocks which are situated in dangerous situations have to be removed by the local authority with the help and assistance of experts. Advocate Commissioner has also produced certain photographs with respect to a rock situated in the hillock and a pond. The formidable contention was that the learned Single Judge has granted the main relief sought for in the writ petition as an interim order as per order dated 1.10.2020.

¶110

Going by the contentions raised in the writ appeals, we are of the

¶111

WA.Nos.1546 & 1580 OF 2020

¶112

¶113

view that the appellants can only be aggrieved by the order dated 1.10.2020. This we say because we are of the opinion that the common order dated 19.11.2020 cannot be said to be in any manner illegal or otherwise infirm liable to be challenged, since it only permitted transporting of laterite stone legally removed based on the permit issued and the royalty paid by the petitioner, apart from impleading the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority and directions issued to study the problems faced by the residents and therefore the appellants can never be said to be aggrieved by the said order.

¶114

On the other hand learned counsel for writ petitioner vehemently contended that, the report submitted by the Soil Conservation Officer, District Soil Conservation Office, Manjeri, has no manner of relevance or significance in the matter of granting quarrying permit especially when the quarrying permit was issued after securing environmental clearance and other consents/licenses. It was also pointed out that learned Single Judge has taken note of Ext.P10 inspection report of the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority, which after site inspection had remarked that the site inspection was carried out along with the Village Officer based on the complaints of the residents that there was a possibility of landslide due to the quarrying in Meppatta Mala Hills in Cheekode Panchayat and the inspection revealed that the writ petitioner has obtained the permit for quarrying laterite from the hillock and he had obtained all the documents including environmental

¶115

WA.Nos.1546 & 1580 OF 2020

¶116

¶117

clearance and the site is currently in the early stages of quarrying. In the specific recommendation column it was suggested that mining should be done in strict compliance with the mining plan. That apart it was contended that an adverse report was submitted by the District Geologist consequent to a complaint filed by the quarry operator to the Minister for Industries, Government of Kerala, stating that the District Geologist had asked for a bribe of Rs.2,00,000/-. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that when a report is submitted by the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority, which is the competent authority to submit reports in regard to the environmental and ecological aspects, there can be no predominance to the report of the District Geologist or Soil Conservation Officer. The maintainability of the composite appeals against different interim orders are also challenged .

¶118

We have heard, learned counsel for appellants Sri.Abdul Kareem.P.S., senior Government Pleader Sri.Aravinda Kumar Babu and Sri.Babu S.Nair for the quarry operator and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

¶119

The paramount contention advanced by learned counsel for appellants is that the main relief sought for by the quarry operator is granted by way of an interim order. From the relief sought for in the writ petition, it is clear that virtually as per order dated 1.10.2020 learned Single Judge granted the 2^nd relief in W.P.(C) No.9764/2020 filed by the quarry operator as an

¶120

WA.Nos.1546 & 1580 OF 2020

¶121

¶122

interim relief, having directed the Geologist to renew the permit. We are also conscious of the fact that in the said writ petition the main challenge is to quash Ext.P9 order passed by the Senior Geologist, Mining & Geology Department, Malappuam, who has refused to renew the mining permit, consequent to the reasons assigned in Ext.P9 order narrated above.

¶123

Apart from the same, even going by the 2^nd relief in the said writ petition, the writ petitioner has sought for grant of renewal of quarrying permit by reconsidering Ext.P4 application and Ext.P8 submission after securing a report from the Soil Conservation Officer, the 2^nd respondent therein. The report of the Soil Conservation Officer extracted above would make it clear that it was drawn in the presence of the District Geologist and other superior officers of the District Soil Conservation Office Malappuram, and apparently there are certain issues pending touching upon environmental and ecological aspects and the problems faced by the residents of the nearby colony. In our considered view the learned Single Judge ought to have taken note of the findings so contained in the said report especially when the permit holder has sought for the relief of renewal of the quarrying permit only after securing a report from the Soil Conservation Officer.

¶124

In fact we had the advantage of perusing the report of the Advocate Commissioner, which was not available before the learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 1.10.2020, whereby the Geologist was directed to renew the permit without delay, since in the said order alone an

¶125

WA.Nos.1546 & 1580 OF 2020

¶126

¶127

Advocate Commissioner was also appointed. The Advocate Commissioner also reported certain issues in respect of environmental as well as ecological aspects.

¶128

Be that as it may, learned counsel for writ petitioner has a case that a composite appeal filed by the appellants from the orders dated 1.10.2020 and 19.11.2020 is not maintainable under law in view of section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, which reads thus:

¶129

“ 5. Appeal from judgment or order of Single Judge .-- An appeal shall lie to a Bench of two Judges from--

¶130

(i) a judgment or order of a Single Judge in the exercise of original jurisdiction.

¶131

(ii) a judgment of a Single Judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of original jurisdiction by Subordinate Court.”

¶132

The sum and substance of the contention advanced is that in section 5(1), it is clearly specified that appeal from an “order” and therefore, it contemplates separate appeal from every interim order passed in one writ petition itself. In our considered view, the issue with respect to the term “order” specified in section 5(1) of Act, 1958 was considered by a Larger Bench of this Court in K.S.Das v.State of Kerala [1992(2)KLT 358(FB)] in the realm of maintainability of an appeal to a Division Bench under section 5(1) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 against an interlocutory order in a writ petition, while the main writ petition is pending and if so what are the

¶133

WA.Nos.1546 & 1580 OF 2020

¶134

¶135

circumstances under which or the types of cases in which such an appeal would lie. By a majority of 4:1, it was held that an appeal would lie from intermediary “orders” and the issues with respect the word “order” contained under section 5(1) was differentiated from the word “judgment” in the said section and held that in any writ petition pending, any number of interlocutory/intermediary orders could be passed by a learned Single Judge pending adjudication of the main lis however an appeal would lie against such “orders” only if the orders substantially affect or touch upon the substantial rights or liabilities of the parties or are matters of moment and cause substantial prejudice to the parties. True the law was laid down in the context of the maintainability of an appeal from the order passed during the pendency of the main petition, but the term “order” in section 5 of the High Court Act 1958 can never be interpreted to mean that it is an indicative factor to say that from every appealable intermediary order a separate appeal is to be preferred .

¶136

In our considered opinion the orders passed in any pending writ petitions can be clearly differentiated from a judgment passed or common judgment passed. Even if it can be insisted that separate appeals have to be made from the judgment in each writ petition the same kind of strict requirement need not be insisted upon in the interlocutory orders passed at a given time while the writ petitions are pending. We are also of the opinion that in a pending writ petition several orders intermediary in nature may be passed

¶137

WA.Nos.1546 & 1580 OF 2020

¶138

¶139

by the writ court and if such orders passed at a given point of time on any applications submitted by either side, is directed to be challenged in different appeals it would lead to docket exploitation in an unimaginary level and would make the litigation highly expensive to the litigant public, which is never the intention of the legislature.

¶140

That apart in our view separate appeals need be insisted upon only from orders passed in different writ petitions and not orders passed in the very same writ petition. This we say because the orders under challenge in the writ appeal 1546/2020, is an order dated 1.10.2020 in W.P.(C) No.9764/2020 and the common order dated 19.11.2020 in that writ petition and W.P. © No 24078/2020. Whereas in the connected writ appeal what is under challenge is the common order dated 19-11-2020 which according to us was the correct approach in law . Therefore, in our considered opinion it cannot be said that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the challenge made in the interlocutory orders in the captioned writ appeals are bad or illegal. Moreover, the said interim orders are intrinsically connected and further that the common order passed by the learned Single Judge on 19.11.2020 cannot be said to be an order aggrieved by the appellants since the learned Single Judge has directed the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority to constitute a team and identify the issues with respect to the drinking water and other grievances projected by the appellants in order to finally adjudicate the grievance highlighted by the residents of the locality. So also the quarry owner

¶141

WA.Nos.1546 & 1580 OF 2020

¶142

¶143

was only permitted to transport laterite stones extracted legally based on the permit issued and the royalty paid. So understood, virtually the challenge made confines to the interim order dated 1.10.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.9764/2020. That said no manner of prejudice is also caused to the writ petitioner in that regard.

¶144

Now, to attain finality to the order dated 1.10.2020 we are of the view that the report of Soil Conservation Officer dated 29.5.2020 ought to have been taken note of while passing the impugned order dated 1.10.2020, for the reasons stated above. That apart report of the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority is on the basis of the investigation conducted on 26.8.2019, whereas the report of the Soil Conservation Officer dated 29-05-2020 was on the basis of the inspection conducted on 19-05-2020 in the presence of the District Geologist, Malappuram, District Soil Conservation Officer, Malappuram and the Assistant Director of Soil Survey, Malappuram, which is later in point of time. We are also of the view that the report of the soil conservation officer cannot be said to be drawn by a stranger especially when the prayers sought for by the quarry operator insisted upon a report of the soil conservation officer, the 2nd respondent. Above all the direction for renewal of the permit is a main relief sought for in the writ petition which cannot be granted by way of an interim relief and that too when the impugned order Ext.P9 declining renewal of permit is remaining in force. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge dated

¶145

WA.Nos.1546 & 1580 OF 2020

¶146

¶147

1.10.2020 requires interference.

¶148

In the result we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.10.2020 in W.P.(C) No.9764/2020 partly, insofar as it directs renewal of permit, and accordingly W.A.No.1546/2020 is partly allowed, and declines interference in the common order dated 19.11.2020 in W.P.(C) Nos.9764/2020 and 24078/2020, under challenge in the appeals.

Sd/-

S.MANIKUMAR

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

smv

Sasikumaran v. Abdurahiman Karattuchali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasikumaran v. Abdurahiman Karattuchali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Binu Mathew Chacko

Leonard John Vs the State of Kerala

Abhimanue Prince, Vs the State of Kerala

G.George Vs Pooyappally Grama Panchayath

Bijeesh.E Vs Kozhikode Corporation

Dr. Reji Nicholas Vs State of Kerala