Dismissed

Sheelu Reji, v. Kerala State Enviornmental Impact Assessment Authority

Kerala HC6 Aug 2020WA/936/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants filed a writ appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition alleging illegal mining near public roads. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no evidence other than photographs proved the quarry was within 50 meters of a Panchayat road.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act was dismissed.

Sheelu Reji, Vs Kerala State Enviornmental Impact… — Writ and Judicial Review | 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

THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶7

WA.No.936 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 34413/2019(B) DATED 22.01.2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/S:

¶10

1 SHEELU REJI, AGED 41, KOTTAKKUZHI HOUSE, KURAVANKUZHI P.O.,THIRUVALLA, PIN-689 548.

¶11

2 SARAMMA LIJU @ SARAMMA GEORGE, THOPPIL HOUSE, KURAVANKUZHY P.O.,THIRUVALLA, PIN-689 548.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.VISHAK.K.JOHNSON SRI.S.NITHIN (ANCHAL)

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 KERALA STATE ENVIORNMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 001.

¶15

2 THE JOINT-CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 011.

¶16

3 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶17

4 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA,PIN-689 645.

¶18

WA.No.936 OF 2020 2

¶19

5 GEOLOGIST, OFFICE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, PATHANAMTHITTA,PIN-689 645.

¶20

6 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT PATHANAMTHITTA,PIN-689 645.

¶21

7 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA,PIN-689 645.

¶22

8 A.D.M., PATHANAMTHITTA,PIN-689 645.

¶23

9 VILLAGE OFFICER, THOTTAPUZHASSERY, THOTTAPUZHASSERY P.O., PIN-689 101.

¶24

10 THE SECRETARY, THOTTAPUZHASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THOTTAPPUZHASSERY P.O., PIN-689 101.

¶25

11 PANCHAYIL INDUSTRIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,HEAD OFFICE AT WEST OTHARA P.O.,THIRUVALLA,PIN-689 546.

¶26

R1 BY ADV. ADV.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN (B/O) R2 BY ADV. SRI. P.VIJAYAKUMAR(B/O) R3-9 BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE (B/O)

¶27

R10 BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX R10 BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX R10 BY ADV. SHRI.MANU SANKAR P. R11 BY ADV. ADV.N.JAMES KOSHY(B/O)

¶28

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

WA.No.936 OF 2020 3

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Dated this the 6th day of August 2020

¶32

S.MANIKUMAR, CJ.

¶33

Being aggreived by the Judgment in W.P.(C).

¶34

No.34413 of 2019 dated 22.01.2020, the instant Writ Appeal is filed.

¶35

The sum and substance of the contention

¶36

raised before the writ court as summarised by the writ petitioner is follows:

¶37

“Petitioner, sought interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging illegal mining by the 11^th respondent as well as the encroachment of the public roads and adjacent lands. According to the petitioner, these roads become dangerous for public use on account of dangerous pits created by extraction of minerals at the edge of the roads. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that by virtue of Minor Mineral Concession Rules, no quarrying is permitted within the radius of 50 meters from the public road. That apart, the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act also prohibit quarrying in

¶38

WA.No.936 OF 2020 4

¶39

the lands of Panchayat and near

¶40

to the public roads. The Geologist noticing illegal

¶41

excavation issued a notice with regard tot eh illegal quarrying from the Government land. As per Ext.P7, another notice was also issued by the District Geologist rejecting the reply submitted by the 11^th respondent. petitioners have submitted various representations including Exts.P9

¶42

and P10 praying to cancel the explosive licence for the violation of licensing conditions. This court while issuing notice called upon the Geologist to submit a report.”

¶43

After considering the geological report called for and the steps taken by the authorities, by observing that there is no need for the writ petition to be kept pending, and while adverting to the pleadings that the quarry site is located within the radius of 50 meters from the Panchayat road, writ petition has been disposed of as hereunder:

¶44

“Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned

¶45

WA.No.936 OF 2020 5

¶46

Government Pleader, I am of the view that grievance as reflected in the common notice above do not compel this Court to keep the writ petition pending, as a report has already been forwarded to the competent authority, who shall decide the matter in accordance with law. As far as the allegations of quarrying in the radius of 50 meters of Panchayat road, no other materials have been produced except the photographs.

¶47

Therefore, I do not intend to issue any direction to the Panchayat in this regard to redress the grievance of quarrying.”

¶48

At the time, when the appeal was taken up for hearing, when a question was posed to the learned counsel for the appellants as to how the appellant is aggrieved over the judgment in W.P. (C).No.34413 of 2019 dated 22.01.2020, Sri, P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, the appellants are aggrieved by the finding of the writ court recorded at paragraph No.3 of the judgment stated supra, in

¶49

WA.No.936 OF 2020 6

¶50

particular to the location of the quarry site

¶51

which is extracted as follows:

¶52

“As far as the allegations of quarrying in the radius of 50 meters of Panchayat road, no other materials have been

¶53

produced except the photographs.

¶54

Therefore, I do not intend to issue any direction to the Panchayat in this regard to redress the grievance of

¶55

quarrying.”

¶56

Contending inter alia that the said

¶57

finding is erroneous, Mr.P.B.Krishnan, learned

¶58

counsel for the appellants, has taken us through the relevant paragraphs 3,6 and 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary,

¶59

Thottappuzhassery Grama Panchayat, which are as follows:

¶60

“3.It is submitted that the ChallakuzhyKochuthadam road in Thottappuzhassery Grama Panchayat is included in the Asset Register of the Panchayat. As per the entry in the said register, the said road is having a length of 760 meters. About 100 meters of the said road from Challakuzhy now is tarred/concreted and

¶61

WA.No.936 OF 2020 7

¶62

the remaining portion of the road is passing through uninhabited locality and at present exists only as a pathway which terminates at the land being quarried by the 11^th respondent.

¶63

6. It is submitted that the ParuthymukkuKallippara Vayanasala road is having a length of 1200 meters as per the Asset Register. The road is tarred and maintained in motorable condition.

¶64

7. The Maloor-Kallippara road is having a length of 1100 meters as per the Asset Register and about 400 meters of the said road is tarred and maintenance works for the above mentioned road is done only for the portions which is being used by the local residents, as the portion of the road which is adjacent or passing through the quarry area is uninhabited and at present it is not being used by the general public for commuting.”

¶65

Though learned counsel for the

¶66

appellants laid emphasis on the above said

¶67

paragraphs, to contend that the quarry site is

¶68

located within the radius of 50 meters of Panchayat road, there is no material to indicate

¶69

the distance between the quarry site and the

¶70

WA.No.936 OF 2020 8

¶71

road, whereas measurements of the roads alone are mentioned in the counter affidavit. Giving due consideration of the pleadings and submissions, we are of the view that there is no error in the finding rendered by the writ court, so as to interfere in an intra court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act.

¶72

The writ appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

S.MANIKUMAR

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Uu/06.08.2020

WA.No.936 OF 2020 9

¶81

APPENDIX

¶82

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF LOCATION SKETCH OF THE EZHUMATTOOR BLOCK NO.25 ISSUED BY THOTTAPPUZHASSERY VILLAGE OFFICE ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE MEETING OF THOTTAPPUZHASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 15.02.2020

Sheelu Reji, v. Kerala State Enviornmental Impact Assessment Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheelu Reji, v. Kerala State Enviornmental Impact Assessment Authority

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

Samastha Nair Samajam (Sns), Vs State of Kerala

Akhila Bharathiya Vidyarthi Parishid Vs the Government of Kerala

Johnson M.M. Vs the Regional Transport Authority

The Central Board of Secondary Education, Vs Prapanch S.(Minor)

The University of Calicut Vs Kalyani S Vinod

Kolambil Hamza Haji Vs State of Kerala