Disposed

M.P.Vinod v. District Disaster Management Authority

Kerala HC15 Jan 2021WP(C)/23007/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of the writ petition for implementation of an order to demolish an illegal check dam, holding that the matter was already considered by the Division Bench. Since the water had been drained out as directed, the petition did not require fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of by applying the existing judgments and directions given by the Division Bench in the connected Writ Petitions.

M.P.Vinod Vs District Disaster Management Authority — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/25TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.23007 OF 2020(A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M.P.VINOD, S/O. RAMAN, MALAYAM PARAMPATHU, VILLA 2, CHAKKALA KUTHU, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL SRI.S.SREEDEV SRI.RONY JOSE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 DISTRICT DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM 676 505, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶11

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM 676 505.

¶12

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, MALAPPURAM 676 504.

¶13

4 ABDUL LATHEEF C.K., S/O. IMBICHI MOHAMMED, BISMILLA, KALYANATHOPPARAMBU, PALAT NAGAR, THIRUVANOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 631.

¶14

R1-R3 BY G.P.SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH R4 BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.SURESH SUKUMAR R4 BY ADV. SRI.ANZIL SALIM R4 BY ADV. SHRI.SETHU KRISHNA R.S. R4 BY ADV. SHRI.CHACKO MATHEWS K. R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.23007/2020

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 15^th day of January, 2021

¶20

The writ petition was filed by the petitioner aggrieved

¶21

by a construction by the 4^th respondent, of an illegal check dam by diverting and obstructing a forest stream. By Ext.P1 order dated 08.12.2017, the District Collector passed an order holding that the check dam in question should be demolished. The petitioner seeks implementation of Ext.P1 order.

¶22

Ext.P1 order was challenged by the 4^th respondent filing WP(C) No.41156/2017. The said writ petition was considered along with another Public Interest Litigation No. 9553/2018. The petitioner was additional 8^th respondent in WP(C)No.41156/2017.

¶23

After hearing all the parties, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition as follows:

¶24

WP(C)No.23007/2020

¶25

¶26

“23. However, the fact remains that water was drained out from the check dam during monsoon season by creating a vent way, in accordance with the interim orders issued by this Court periodically. Though the public interest litigant has a contention that even now there is water in the check dam, it is evident from the report filed by the District Collector that the vent way created was sufficient enough to drain out the water, so as to avert any possible danger that may occur due to accumulation of water in the dam.

¶27

In so far as WP(C)No.9553 of 2018, the relief sought for by the petitioner to demolish the water theme park established by the 5^th respondent, i.e., Sri.P.V. Anvar, M.L.A., has virtually become infructuous consequent to the draining out of water from the check dam, as specified above. However, we make it clear that the District Collector, Malappuram, shall be at liberty to conduct periodical inspection and identify whether, any activities are taking place in the check dam area, without securing permission from the statutory authorities concerned, and whether, water is being accumulated in the check dam, so as to cause danger and damage to the ecology, the environment, and the tribals residing in the nearby area. The said writ petition is disposed of recording that already the water from the check dam is drained out. As we have upheld Exhibit-P7 order of the District Collector, Malappuram dated 08.12.2017 in WP(C) No.41156 of 2017, authorities are directed to ensure that no further activities are conducted in the area in question by blocking the natural water course.”

¶28

¶29

¶30

It is submitted at the bar that Ext.P2 has become final as on date.

¶31

Since the Division Bench of this Court already considered the challenge against Ext.P1 and found that WP(C)No.9553/2018 has become virtually infructuous consequent to the draining of the water from the check dam,

¶32

this Court does not deem it proper to adjudicate the matter again. The Division Bench has already given certain directions to the District Collector in respect of the alleged illegal check dam.

¶33

In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of holding that the judgment of the Division Bench and directions given therein will govern this writ petition also.

¶34

Sd/- N. NAGARESH JUDGE

ncd

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2017 WITH NO. B2-37277/2015, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.06.2020 IN WP 4156/2017 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONBLE COURT.

¶41

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.07.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

M.P.Vinod v. District Disaster Management Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P.Vinod v. District Disaster Management 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

Smt.Rajeswary.K, Vs State of Kerala

Adv. N.O.Inasu, Vs State of Kerala

Saifudeen, Vs the State of Kerala

Rajasree R Kamath, Vs the Union of India

Jayasree v. Vs State Bank of India

K.E.Sunitha Vs the Insurance Ombudsman