Disposed

Thomsun Realtors Private Limited., v. the District Geologist

Kerala HC14 Sept 2020WP(C)/11426/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Excavation incidental to building construction was subjected to a requirement for consent from neighbouring owners and authorities. The court quashed that requirement while retaining the need for a quarrying permit, transit passes and environmental clearance. It permitted expert inspection and additional safety measures before a decision on the permit application.

What did the court decide?

The impugned consent requirement was quashed; further consideration of the quarrying permit application was directed, with liberty to assess risks and require safety measures.

Thomsun Realtors Private Limited., Vs the… — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

(C.R)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶5

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 23RD BHADRA, 1942

¶6

WP(C).No.11426 OF 2020(C)

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

THOMSUN REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED., NO. 9451, THOMSON ANNEX, ACHUTHA WARRIER LANE, M.G ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 035 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, THANKACHAN THOMAS V.S, S/O. V.U THOMAS, AGED 60 YEARS

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 030

¶12

2 THE DIRECTOR , MINING AND GEOLOGY, OFFICE OF THE MINING AND GEOLOGY, KEAVADASAPURAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.K.T.THOMAS, AMICUS CURIAE

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶17

================== W.P.(C).No. 11426 of 2020

¶18

==================

¶19

Dated this the 14^th day of September, 2020

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:

¶22

That the petitioner obtained Ext.P-1 building permit, Ext.P-2 development permit, Exts.P3 & P4 environment clearances and all other licences and permits from authorities concerned to construct a multi storied building under the name and style of “Prestige Forum” consisting of residential apartments and retail shopping malls having plinth area of 154679.35 M2. That there are commercial and residential buildings in the proposed plan of the petitioner and measurement of area of the said separate buildings has been separately mentioned in the building permit. The petitioner almost completed the structural work of the commercial building in Ext.P-1 building permit and the remaining is only two separate residential towers having total plinth area of 57552 M2. That the petitioner can construct the residential towers as aforesaid only after extraction and removal of ordinary clay and ordinary earth from the foundation of the building. Hence the petitioner approached the 1^st respondent and submitted Ext.P-10 application and thereby requested to issue permit for excavation along with sufficient passes. Then the 1^st respondent informed that for removing earth from the foundation of the building, a separate environment clearance is required for the said purpose. Even though no separate environmental clearance is required to extract and transport minor minerals from the foundation of the building, as an abundant caution the petitioner again approached the SEIAA and again obtained Ext.P-2 environment clearance certificate dated 21.10.2019 for extraction of minor minerals from the foundation of building. Thereafter, a site inspection was conducted from the office of 1^st respondent and issued Ext.P-13 order dated 6.3.2020 and thereby directed the petitioner to produce consent letter from owners of neighboring property and road authorities situated within 50 meters radius from the proposed site. It is urged that Ext.P-13 communication issued by the 1^st respondent is illegal and beyond his jurisdiction. That the petitioner is

¶23

W.P.(C).11426/20 - : 3 :-

¶24

proposing to construct the residential building only after extraction and removal of clay and earth from the foundation of the building. It is stated that the said activity of petitioner is not a quarrying or mining activity, but it is only for the purpose of construction of building. Moreover the activity of the petitioner would come only under Rules 104 and 106 of the Kerala Minor Mineral concession Rules, in which quarrying permit or mining permit is not required. Hence the petitioner submitted Ext.P-14 application dated 10.3.2020 before the 1^st respondent and thereby, requested to issue special transit passes to the petitioner to transport ordinary earth without quarrying permit as provided under Rules 104 and 106 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. But even after receipt of Ext.P-14 also the 1^st respondent took an adamant stand that he would issue transit permits to the petitioner only after complying with the conditions for quarrying permit by the petitioner, as stated in Ext.P-13. During the pendency of the application of the petitioner, the validity of Ext.P-12 environment clearance has expired and the petitioner submitted Ext.P-15 application dated 03.06.2020 before SEIAA for renewal of Ext.P-12 P12 environment clearance. That the activity of the petitioner is not a quarrying activity as provided under Rule 9 of the Kerala Minor mineral concession Rules, but it is only for the purpose of removal of clay and earth from the foundation of building for the purpose of construction of residential building. Hence consent from the owners of adjacent properties and road authorities has not been required in the case of petitioner for granting transit permit and transit passes. The petitioner secured a building permit after complying with the strict conditions of the building rules framed under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act and Rules, after payment of huge fee. In a case, where a building permit gets for constructing a multi storied residential apartment and commercial complex, necessarily earth/clay excavation from the foundation will have to be done. Therefore, it is implied that where once party has secured a building permit for constructing a multi-storied flat complex or commercial complex in accordance with building rules, the permit holder is also lawfully permitted to extract minor minerals from the foundation of the building. Once the party concerned secures such building permit in accordance with the

¶25

W.P.(C).11426/20 - : 4 :-

¶26

applicable building rules, no consent from the adjacent property holders is required so long as such conditions are not prescribed either in the building rules or in the other conditions stipulated in the building permit, as authorized by the rules. So no consent from the owners of abject property or road authorities within the limit of 50 meters is required as stated in exhibit P13. This position has been clarified by this court in the decision reported in Muhammed Bappu Vs Senior Geologist 2020 (3) KLT 144.

¶27

It is in the light of the above averments and contentions

¶28

that the petitioner filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:

¶29

“A. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ direction or order by call for the records leading to the issuance of exhibit P13 order issued by the first respondent since the same is illegal and beyond his jurisdiction.

¶30

B. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the first respondent to issue sufficient permit and passes to transport ordinary earth and clay removed by the petitioner from the foundation of multi storied building constructing on the basis of exhibit P1 building permit without insisting environment clearance, mining plan and consent from the adjacent property holders and road authorities within a reasonable period which this honourable court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case.

¶31

C. Declare that no mining plan, environment clearance and consent from the adjacent property owners and road authorities are required for the purpose of extraction and removal of ordinary earth or ordinary clay from the foundation of a building of petitioner for the purpose of construction.

¶32

D. Declare that no separate environment clearance is required to extract and remove minor minerals from the foundation of building constructing by the petitioner since petitioner already obtained exhibit P3 and P4 environment clearance which is conclusive for all the purposes from the bilging of construction till finishing the work including removal of clay and earth from the foundation of building.

¶33

And

¶34

D. (sic)Such other writ, direction or order, which deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and the circumstances of the case.”

¶35

Heard Sri.P.M.Ziraj, learned counsel appearing for the

¶36

petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents and Sri.K.T.Thomas, learned Amicus

¶37

W.P.(C).11426/20 - : 5 :-

¶38

Curiae.

¶39

From the pleadings and materials on record, it is seen that the petitioner has obtained Ext.P-1 building permit dated 26.5.2018 issued by the Secretary of the Maradu Municipality, for construction of multi-storied buildings with residential and commercial occupancy having a plinth area of 57552.87 sq. mtr in residential occupancy and 96,433.48 sq.mtr. in commercial occupancy and thus totalling to 1,53,906.35 sq.mtrs. Prior to obtaining the building permit, the petitioner had secured development permit from the Maradu municipality, which is stated to be valid upto 7.8.2020. Earlier the petitioner is also said to have obtained Environmental Clearance (EC) as per Ext.P-3 dated 30.6.2012 from the Kerala State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, originally for a built up area of 1,74,492 sq. mtrs, as per Ext.P-3, under category B.8(a) & (b) project under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. The built up area is stated to have been later reduced to 1,54,679.35 sq. mtr. and Ext.P-4 EC dated 28.10.2015 was also secured by the petitioner. That, in the meanwhile the petitioner completed the structure work of the commercial building. Further it is stated that the petitioner had obtained Ext.P-12 EC dated 21.10.2019 from the State Environment Impact Assessment

¶40

W.P.(C).11426/20 - : 6 :-

¶41

Authority for removal of ordinary earth for carrying out foundation work of the residential buildings and had approached the 1^st respondent District Geologist, Ernakulam, for seeking quarrying permit for extraction and removal of ordinary clay and ordinary earth for carrying out excavation work for construction of the residential buildings in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2015, etc. The conditions in the said EC provide for approved minor plan and compliance of the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2015.

¶42

Now the 1^st respondent District Geologist as per the impugned Ext.P-13 communication dated 6.3.2020 has directed the petitioner to produce consent from the owners/authorities concerned of residences, institutions, canal, road etc. situated within 50 meters of the quarrying site for considering the formal application of the petitioner for quarrying permit. It is this requirement in the impugned Ext.P-13 dated 6.3.2020 issued by the District Geologist that is essentially under challenge in this Writ Petition.

¶43

The matter in issue is broadly covered in favour of the petitioner as per dictum laid down by this Court in the decision in Muhammed Bappu @ Muhammed vs. The Senior Geologist

¶44

[2020 (3) KLT 144], wherein it has been held that the restriction

¶45

W.P.(C).11426/20 - : 7 :-

¶46

under Rule 10(f) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2015, mandating consent from nearby property owners cannot really be pressed into service in a case where, the major activity is for building construction and the incidental aspect is for excavation of work for carrying out the main activity of building construction and since such a main activity will not involve the process of winning any mineral, the same will not satisfy the definition of “mining operations” as understood in Rule 3(d) of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act, 1957 (“MMDR Act”). Detailed reasons have been given by this Court in the said judgment in the said judgment in Muhammed Bappu's case supra [2020(3) KLT 144] for arriving at such a conclusion. Accordingly, this Court held that the said insistence for obtaining consent from owners/authorities concerned of residences, institutions, etc. situated within 50 meters of the quarrying site in relation to the construction activity in question is illegal and ultra vires and that such consent cannot be insisted, which is applicable only in the case of mining operations, which would satisfy the definition of “ mining operations ” as envisaged in Sec. 3(d) of the MMDR Act, 1957. Rule 14 the Kerala Minor Concessions Rules, 2015, prior to the amendment made effective from 12.6.2020, reads as follows:

¶47

W.P.(C).11426/20 - : 8 :-

¶48

“Rule 14: Quarrying Permit for Ordinary earth.-- (1) A quarrying permit under these rules shall be obtained for extraction of ordinary earth used for filling or levelling purposes in construction of embankments, roads, railways or buildings in Form N:

¶49

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), no quarrying permit is required under these rules for extraction of ordinary earth in connection with the construction of residential buildings including flats or commercial buildings having a plinth area of 300 square meters if the owner of the land obtained a prior valid permit for construction of such building from the Local Self Government authorities concerned;

¶50

Provided that in cases where transportation of ordinary earth is required, the owner of the land shall obtain mineral transit passes for the quantity to be transported under the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015 after making payment of royalty, on an application submitted in this regard. Such application shall be accompanied by (1) valid building permit for construction of building obtained from the Local Self Government authorities concerned, (2) land development permit obtained from the Local Self Government authorities concerned in cases where the levelling of the land and extraction of ordinary earth is involved and (3) possession and enjoyment certificate of the land issued by the Village Officer concerned:

¶51

Provided further that in cases where levelling of land and extraction of ordinary earth is involved, the building permit shall be accompanied by an approved building plan obtained from the Local Self Government authorities concerned which shall contain the area of land to be developed for the construction of the building and the quantity of ordinary earth to be extracted for such construction.

¶52

(3) A person who applies for mineral transit passes for transportation of ordinary earth under this rule shall also submit along with the application a sworn affidavit in stamped paper to the effect that he will carry out the proposed construction as per the building plan and building permit and shall complete at least the construction of basement of the building within one year from the date of issuance of mineral transit passes and intimate the same to the competent authority.

¶53

(4) In the event of extraction of ordinary earth outside the permitted area, the permission granted for extraction and transportation shall be liable for cancellation and the offender shall be liable to pay an amount equal to five times the royalty of the ordinary earth extracted outside the area of permission as penalty.

¶54

(5) In the event of failure to complete at least the construction of basement of building within one year from the date of issuance of mineral transit passes the act of extraction of ordinary earth shall be

¶55

W.P.(C).11426/20 - : 9 :-

¶56

treated as illegal and the offender shall be liable to pay an amount equal to five times the royalty of the ordinary earth extracted from the area, in addition to the amount already paid.”

¶57

Later, the operative portion of Rule 14(2) of the KMMC Rules, 2015, has been amended prospectively w.e.f. 12.6.2020 as per SRO No.391/2020 dated 12.6.2020, and the said amendment notification reads as follows:

¶58

“(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rube (1), no quarrying permit is required under these rules for extraction of ordinary earth in connection with the construction and digging of foundation for the buildings not requiring environmental clearance under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (Central Act 29 of 1986), if the owner of the land obtained a prior valid permit for construction of such building from the Local Self Government authorities concerned or if the owner of the land is entitled to construct such building as per the Kerala Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019 (16 of 2019).”

¶59

The major difference made out as per the said amendment made effective prospectively from 12.6.2020 is that the threshold limit of the construction of the plinth area is now enhanced from 300 sq.mtrs. to 20,000 sq.mtrs. Therefore, now, on and with effect from 12.6.2020, if the plinth area of the construction activity does not exceed the threshold of 20,000 sq.mtr., then the requirement of quarrying permit as envisaged in Rule 14 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, will not be applicable. However, no amendments have been made to the two provisos attached to the sub rule (2) of Rule 14 and therefore, before removing and transporting the excavated ordinary earth from the construction site to another place

¶60

W.P.(C).11426/20 - : 10 :-

¶61

using a vehicle, etc., then the party concerned will be obliged to secure transit pass issued by the competent District Geologist concerned in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules 2015. That apart, in view of the norms in the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, the EC for removal of ordinary earth in relation to construction activity is not required so long as the plinth area does not exceed 20,000 sq.mtr., as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in District Geologist v. Sivaraman [2020 (1) KLT 375]. However, these aspects may not be applicable in the instant case, inasmuch as the total plinth area of the construction activity far exceeds the threshold limit of 20,000 sq. mtr. In this case, the only issue is as to the legality and correctness of the insistence made by the 1^st respondent District Geologist in Ext.P-13 communication requiring the petitioner to secure consent from the owners/authorities concerned of the residences, institutions, etc. situated within 50 meters of the quarrying site of the construction activity before considering the application for quarrying permit. Hence the petitioner is legally required to secure not only transit pass, but also quarrying permit as well as EC for the abovesaid activity of excavation of ordinary earth in relation to the construction activity in

¶62

W.P.(C).11426/20 - : 11 :-

¶63

question.

¶64

In this regard, it is relevant to note that the Apex Court in the decision in the case in Promoters & Builders Association of Pune v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2015 (12) SCC 736] has held that excavation of ordinary earth for uses not contemplated in the notification would not amount to mining activity so as to attract penal provisions under the MMDR Act.

¶65

Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the present constructions of the petitioner in this case include lower ground floor plus basement floor, which require excavation of ordinary earth at a depth of 5.5 mtrs. and therefore it is on account of this factual aspect, that the 1^st respondent District Geologist has issued the impugned Ext.P-13 communication.

¶66

After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the matter in issue is broadly covered by the dictum laid down by this Court in the decision in Muhammed Bappu's case [2020 (3) KLT 144]. In that case, this Court has also held that though no mining plan as envisaged in the Kerala Minor Concession Rules is required for a main activity like the present one, which is construction of buildings, the 1^st respondent District Geologist can

¶67

W.P.(C).11426/20 - : 12 :-

¶68

still impose condition to avert damage or danger to the nearby property owners, roads, canals, etc.

¶69

Moreover, Rule 11A of the Kerala Municipality Building

¶70

Rules, 1999 as well as Rule 10 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019, which has repealed and replaced the abovesaid Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, provides for adequate safeguards to take care of the rights and interests of the nearby owners and occupants in the adjoining properties on the actual or possible damages to the life and property that could be caused by any construction activity covered by the Municipality Building Rules. In that regard, it is pertinent to refer to Rule 10 of the Kerala Municipality Buildings Rules, 2019, which reads as follows:

¶71

“ Rule 10: Approval of site and plans and issue of permit where excavations to a depth of more than 1.5 metres is involved .-- (1) in the case of constructions/land developments which involve any earthwork excavation to a depth of more than 1.5 metres, if the depth of cutting is more than the horizontal distance of such cutting from the plot boundary, the following provisions shall apply:

¶72

Provided that, such provisions are not necessary in cases where such excavation is carried out for construction of structures such as wells, septic tank, recharge pits, drainage works, compound walls and the like.

¶73

(2) The application for development and/or building permit shall be submitted by the applicant as per the provisions of these rules, along with a certificate of the Institution, Architect, Building Designer, Engineer, Town Planner, Supervisor as the case may be, who has prepared and signed the plans, drawings, statements etc. as to whether permit as envisaged under Rule 10 is required.

¶74

(3) The application for permit shall also include sufficient copies of:--

¶75

(i) dimensioned plan and sectional drawing showing the abutting road level, the levels and depths of cutting at all places in respect of

¶76

W.P.(C).11426/20 - : 13 :-

¶77

excavations for building construction and land development works;

¶78

(ii) drawings, specifications and details of temporary and permanent protective measures proposed;

¶79

(iii) drawings, specifications and details of slabs, beams, columns, retaining walls etc. proposed at the ground floor level and below; and

¶80

(iv) details of piles if any, including their drawings, specifications, erection methods and the like.

¶81

(4) The Secretary shall issue permit as laid down in these rules:

¶82

Provided that, if any changes or deviations are to be made, it shall satisfy the provisions of these rules and the same shall be intimated to the Secretary with revised drawings, specifications and details as the case may be.

¶83

(5) Any written complaint received after the date of issue of the permit from owners or occupants in the adjoining properties on the actual or possible damages to their life and property shall be acted upon by the Secretary as per the provisions in this rule:

¶84

Provided that the work will not be stopped except under exceptional circumstances such as violation of approved plans and risk of danger to life and property.

¶85

(6) Once the earthworks and/or constructions upto the ground level are completed as per the approved plans, the applicant may in writing intimate the same to the Secretary and request for concurrence for carrying out rest of the works.

¶86

(7) The Secretary shall, if convinced that the works are carried out satisfactorily as per the permit(s) and provisions of this rule and no written complaint is received as in sub-rule (5), issue concurrence as in Appendix C for carrying out the remaining works above the ground level as per approved plans within 7 days after intimating the completion of works upto ground level:

¶87

Provided that, if no objection is raised by the Secretary within the said period to the construction carried out, the applicant may continue with the work above ground level as if concurrence has been given.

¶88

(8) If any complaint is received as in sub-rule (5), the Secretary shall,--

¶89

(i) refer the matter within 5 days to the Technical Expert Committee constituted as per sub-rule(12) and convene a meeting of the Committee;

¶90

(ii) intimate the nature of complaints to the applicant and call for details and explanation if so desired by the Committee;

¶91

(iii) arrange for site inspections, hearing of the applicants and/or petitioners, verification of records and arrange for tests if so required by the Committee; and

¶92

W.P.(C).11426/20 - : 14 :-

¶93

(iv) take up further action as per the recommendations of the Committee.

¶94

(9) The applicant and/or the petitioner shall attend the hearing and shall also produce any details called for within the time specified, if so required by the Committee or the Secretary on its behalf.

¶95

(10) The Committee shall evaluate the damages and fix the compensation and/or suggest further protective measures, if any, to be taken by the applicant to solve the issues raised by the petitioner. The amount of compensation shall include the actual cost of restoration as decided by the Committee and an additional 30% as solatium:

¶96

Provided that the process of the Committee shall be completed within a total duration of 3 weeks.

¶97

(11) Concurrence shall be issued by the Secretary, after ensuring that the protective measures are carried out to the satisfaction of the Committee and the compensation is paid by the applicant as per the decision of the Committee. The actual expenses of the Committee as intimated by the Secretary shall be paid by the applicant.

¶98

(12) For the purpose of this rule, Government may, constitute municipal level Technical Expert Committee(s) comprising of Secretary (convener), Municipal Engineer/ Town Planning Officer and two experts; one each in Structural Engineering and Geotechnical Engineering (to be nominated by Government) to assess the damage, suggest protective measures and fix the compensation.”

¶99

The provisions contained in Rule 10 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019 are broadly in pari materia to the provisions contained in the earlier rules, viz., that as per Rule 11A Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999. Sub rule (5) of Rule 10 of the KMBR, 2019, would mandate that any written complaint received after the issue of the permit from the owners or occupants in the adjoining properties on the actual or possible damages to their life and property shall be acted upon by the Secretary of the Municipality as per the provisions in the said rules. Further, as per Sec. 10(8) if any complaint is received as per Rule 10(5), then the Secretary shall refer

¶100

W.P.(C).11426/20 - : 15 :-

¶101

the matter to the technical expert committee constituted as per sub rule (12) of Rule 10 and further proceedings in that regard are also dealt with therein. Rule 10(12) of the KMBR, 2019 stipulates that Government may constitute municipal level technical expert committee comprising of the Secretary of the Municipality as the convener, Municipal Engineer/town planning officer and two experts; one each in structural engineering and geo technical engineering (to be nominated by the Government) to assess the damage and suggest protective measures and fix compensation, etc. This Court need not examine any further details in that regard for the simple reason that the respondents have not raised any case that the construction already completed by the petitioner has in any manner caused any damage or danger or threat to the nearby properties, etc. or that any complaints have been received by the nearby property owners, etc. Any such grievances of such persons would be dealt with as per law including as per the procedure envisaged in Rule 10 of the Kerala Municipality Buildings Rules, 2019.

¶102

Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned conditions in Ext.P-13 communication dated 6.3.2020 are not sustainable or tenable to the extent it insist that the petitioner should necessarily obtain consent from owners/authorities concerned of residences,

¶103

W.P.(C).11426/20 - : 16 :-

¶104

institutions, canal, road, etc. situated within 50 meters of the quarrying site in relation to the abovesaid construction activity, for considering the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of quarrying permit is not sustainable. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the impugned decision of the 1^st respondent District Geologist as reflected in Ext.P-13 will stand set aside and quashed. However, taking into account the large nature of the construction undertaken by the petitioner, it is made clear that the 1^st respondent Geologist will be at liberty to assess, as to whether the excavation of ordinary earth for the abovesaid construction activity is likely to result in any damage or danger to the nearby property owners, etc. and to take necessary alleviative measures thereon, etc. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already completed substantial portion of the construction after complying with all the procedural formalities and no complains have been received either by the Municipality concerned or by the respondents that the petitioner has conducted excavation of the ordinary earth in any manner, which would cause any danger or damage to the nearby properties, etc. In view of the abovesaid facts and circumstances, it is ordered that the 1^st respondent Geologist will be at liberty to seek the expert guidance and assistance of a Superintending Engineer (Public

¶105

W.P.(C).11426/20 - : 17 :-

¶106

Works Department, Buildings Section) of the area concerned to conduct an inspection of the petitioner's construction site to assess as to whether the construction activity has been carried out by taking all necessary precautionary and safety measures so as to avert damage or danger to nearby property owners, roads, canals, etc. and on receiving such a request, the Superintending Engineer of the Public Works Department, Building Section, will conduct an inspection with due prior notice to the petitioner as well as to the 1^st respondent Geologist to assess such factual aspects and after hearing the petitioner, the Superintending Engineer may give a comprehensive inspection report to the 1^st respondent as to whether the construction activity is being done taking all necessary precautions and safety measures, etc. and also whether any remedial measures are to be taken by the petitioner in that regard. Thereafter a copy of the inspection report should be given to the petitioner and the 1^st respondent District Geologist and after hearing the petitioner may take a decision as to whether additional precautions and safety measures are to be taken by the petitioner to avert any damage or danger to the nearby property owners/ authorities concerned of residences, institutions, canal, road, etc. based on the recommendations of the Superintending Engineer, PWD Buildings Section in the said

¶107

W.P.(C).11426/20 - : 18 :-

¶108

inspection report. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent may take appropriate decision on the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of quarrying permit for carrying out excavation of ordinary earth for the purpose the abovesaid construction activity in question.

¶109

The petitioner will produce certified copy of this judgment along with copies of the memorandum of the W.P.(C). with all the exhibits before the 1^st respondent District Geologist for necessary information and further action.

¶110

The learned Senior Govt. Pleader will ensure that the Secretary of the office of the Advocate General will forward certified copies of this judgment, not only to the two respondents herein but also the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (Buildings Section of the area concerned) for necessary information and further compliance.

¶111

This Court places on record the valuable service rendered by Sri.K.T.Thomas, who has been appointed as Amicus Curies in this case.

¶112

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶113

Sd/sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶114

W.P.(C).11426/20 - : 19 :-

¶115

APPENDIX

¶116

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶117

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 25-06- 2018 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, MARADU MUNICIPALITY
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DATED 25-
	01-2018 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, MARADU MUNICIPALITY
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
	CERTIFICATE DATED 30-06-2012 ISSUED BY THE SEIAA
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-10-2015 ISSUED BY SEIAA
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE PROERTY ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MARADU DATED 30- 01-2020
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE NON ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MARADU DATED 22- 1-2020
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMARCATION CERTIFICATE DATED 23-1-2020 ISSUED BY THE VILALGE OFFICER, MARADU
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 21-3-2016 IN WPC NO. 10745/2016
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN R.P NO. 259/2017 IN WPC NO. 10745/2016 DATED 6-4-2017
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28-12-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FOIL OF CHELAN DATED
	04-01-2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TOWARDS THE APPLICATION FEE

¶118

W.P.(C).11426/20 - : 20 :-

¶119

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE DATED 21-10-2019 ISSUED BY SEIAA

¶120

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 6-3-2020

¶121

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 10-03-2020

¶122

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03-06-2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE SEIAA RENEWAL OF EXHIBIT P12

¶123

EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT DATED 12-03-2020 IN W.P(C) NO. 6526 OF 2020

Thomsun Realtors Private Limited., v. the District Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomsun Realtors Private Limited., v. the District Geologist

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

A.P.Ibrahimkutty Vs the Station House Officer

Don Biju Mathew Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Indira, Vs State of Kerala

Sanjai Lal, Vs State of Kerala

Joy Joseph, Vs State of Kerala

Xxx Vs State of Kerala