Allowed

Babu Poulose v. the District Magistrate

Kerala HC6 Nov 2020WP(C)/21631/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court directed the Panchayat to grant a building permit within two weeks and the District Geologist to issue mineral transit passes upon the petitioner's compliant application under specific Kerala Minor Minerals Concession Rules, following an interim inspection report.

What did the court decide?

Third respondent to grant building permit within two weeks; petitioner to comply with Rule 106(1); second respondent to grant mineral transit passes within two weeks of receipt of application.

Babu Poulose Vs the District Magistrate — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.21631 OF 2020(D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BABU POULOSE AGED 60 YEARS PARAKAYAM HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, RAYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.BINU PAUL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 037.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 037.

¶12

3 SECRETARY, RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RAYAMANGALAM, PIN-683 541.

¶13

BY ADV.SRI.K.J.MANURAJ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.21631 OF 2020(D)

¶16

¶17

W.P.(C) No.21631 of 2020

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The petitioner has applied to the third respondent for a building permit. Since it was found that the petitioner has to remove ordinary earth and also building stones for the purpose of putting up the building proposed by the petitioner, the third respondent has issued a communication to the second respondent, the Geologist to inform whether the petitioner could be granted the building permit sought for. Ext.P2 is the communication forwarded by the third respondent to the second respondent in this connection. The writ petition was filed thereafter, alleging that Ext.P2 request is not being attended to by the second respondent.

¶20

2. On 15.10.2020, this court passed the following interim

¶21

order:

¶22

“The second respondent is directed to file a statement indicating whether the no objection sought by the third respondent in terms of Ext.P2 communication can be granted, after causing an inspection to be made in the site of the building referred to therein.“

¶23

Pursuant to the said interim order, a report has been filed by the second respondent indicating that the petitioner can be granted the building permit applied for by him. It is, however, mentioned in the report

¶24

WP(C).No.21631 OF 2020(D)

¶25

¶26

that the petitioner has to comply with Rules 14(2) and 106(1) of the Kerala Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2015 (the Rules).

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the

¶28

learned Government Pleader.

¶29

It is seen that for removing and transporting ordinary earth and building stones, the petitioner needs to comply with Rules 14(2) and 106(1) of the Rules. In order to comply with Rule 14(2), the petitioner has to secure the building permit and development permit. The petitioner is yet to be granted building permit, though he was issued development permit.

¶30

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :

¶31

(i) The third respondent shall grant the building permit applied for by the petitioner, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled for the same. This shall be done within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶32

(ii) The petitioner shall, thereupon, comply with Rule 106(1) of the Rules. He shall also apply to the second respondent for mineral transit passes for the quantity of minerals to be transported under the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015 with the requisite documents, and the second respondent shall grant

¶33

the mineral transit passes to the petitioner, if the application of the petitioner is in order. The direction aforesaid shall be complied with by the

¶34

WP(C).No.21631 OF 2020(D)

¶35

¶36

second respondent, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the

¶37

application.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶40

¶41

WP(C).No.21631 OF 2020(D)

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DATED 27.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT FIRER'S CERTIFICATE NO.E/SE/KL/22/106(E85179) ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, ERNAKULAM DATED 16.04.2015 RENEWED ON 07.09.2020.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.E/SC/KL/22/980(E95658) DATED 18.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04.09.2020 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04.09.2020 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.3899 OF 2020 DATED 12.02.2020.

¶46

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Babu Poulose v. the District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Poulose v. the District Magistrate

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

Muhammed Asif (Minor) Vs Anita Karwal

Suhara Vs Khadeeja Aliyar

Abdul Salam Vs the District Collector

Managing Director, M/S. Veeyem Distributors Private Limited Vs the State of Kerala

Mary Mathew Vs State of Kerala

K.P. Noushad Vs the State Election Commission