Dismissed

Oseela Beevi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Feb 2020WA/274/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the High Court of Kerala's direction to the appellant to rectify deficiencies in an application for red earth excavation. The Court found that the appellant had already submitted a permit application which was considered, noting deficiencies but keeping the matter open. Consequently, the Court held there was nothing left for adjudication.

What the court decided

AI extract

Oseela Beevi Vs State of Kerala — 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

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941

¶7

WA.No.274 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 650/2020(E) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/S:

¶10

OSEELA BEEVI, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.SHERAFUDEEN, THACHANKAZHIKKATH, MYLAPORE, UMAYANALLOOR, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE.P.O, KOLLAM-691 589.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.R.KISHORE (KALLUMTHAZHAM)

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA,

¶14

TO BE REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

2 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA), REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, K.S.R.T.C.BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

3 THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVANIKETHAN ASRAMOM, KOLLAM-691 002.

¶17

4 SECRETARY, POOYAPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POOYAPALLY – 691 537.

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.274/2020

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 14^th day of February 2020

¶23

S.Manikumar, CJ.

¶24

Challenge in this writ appeal is to the direction issued by the Writ Court to respondent No.3 to consider

¶25

Ext.P2 application preferred by the appellant for excavation of red earth for the construction of a residential building with plinth area of 277.70 square metre.

¶26

Writ Court has ordered that in the case on

¶27

hand, law requires rectification of the deficiencies in the application, and therefore, appellants have to do the needful to rectify the same.

¶28

Writ Court further directed that orders have to be passed withing two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment in W.P.

¶29

(C).No.650 of 2020 dated 16.01.2020.

¶30

Though said judgment is impugned on various

¶31

grounds, Mr.Kishore.R, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, in law, the appellant does

¶32

W.A.274/2020 3

¶33

not require to make an application for removal of red earth.

¶34

Materials on record discloses that the

¶35

application dated 14.10.2019 has been submitted for

¶36

grant/renewal of quarrying permit. For brevity, column

¶37

5 of the application in Form A is extracted hereunder:

¶38

“(v) Name of the minor mineral to be quarried quantity applied for (if applicable) : Excavation of ordinary earth”

¶39

Said application has been considered and that

¶40

the competent authority, the Geologist, Mining and Geology Department, Kollam District has sent a communication dated 23.01.2020 to the appellant, which reads thus:

¶41

“As cited above. As per the application submitted by you quarrying permit in Kottarakara taluk, Pooyappalli Village bearing Sy.No.26/9-1, 26/9-2, 26/9-3 having an extend of 0.3800 hector. As per the application submitted by you dated 07.01.2020 an inspection was conducted and found out that pillar/iron fencing was not constructed surrounding the area where the read earth has to be excavated. The quantity is noted as 6650 cub.Metre on observation it cannot be evaluated. Hence the iron fencing needs to be implemented and the quantity excavated need to

W.A.274/2020

be ascertained.”

From the above, it is discernible that Ext.P2 application dated 14.10.2019 has been considered and accordingly a communication dated 23.01.2020 has been sent to the appellant.

¶46

In view of the above, nothing remains in this appeal for adjudication. If the appellant is aggrieved,

¶47

it is open to take appropriate remedial measures, in accordance with law.

¶48

Writ appeal is dismissed.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

W.A.274/2020

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶58

ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SERVED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 23.01.2020 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH TRANSLATION.

Oseela Beevi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Oseela Beevi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sooppy Narikkatteri Vs State Election Commission

Holy Grace Foundation Vs Dr.K.a. Manoj Kumar

N.Venugopal, Vs State of Kerala

M.v.Alias, Vs the Kerala Lok Ayukta

T.G.Maniyamma Vs Koippuram Grama Panchayat

Chandran G. Vs Sub Inspector of Police