Allowed

Anandavalliamma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jul 2022WP(C)/30326/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a Panchayat resolution prohibiting the transportation of ordinary earth. The court held the petitioner is free to remove earth based on the transit permit issued by the Geologist and directed additional respondents to approach the Geologist for violations of the transit order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned resolution (Ext.P5) was set aside; the petitioner is free to remove ordinary earth based on the transit permit issued by the third respondent.

Anandavalliamma Vs State of Kerala — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 30326 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

ANANDAVALLIAMMA
AGED 83 YEARS
W/O. V.G.BHASKARAN NAIR, PUTHUVATH HOUSE,
KAROOR PAZHOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM -686664.
BY ADV CHITRA JOHNSON

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶9

2MANEED GRAMAPANCHAYATH,
MANEED-PIRAYOM ROAD, MANEED 686664,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3THE GEOLOGIST,
DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
ERNAKULAM 682020.
ADDL.R4.DIDEESH MON A.D.
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. DASAN K.C., ASARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAROOR,
PAZHOOR P.O., MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TLUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 686664.
ADDL.R5.ABHILASH.K.B
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, KARAMANKAL HOUSE,
KAROOR, PAZHOOR P.O., MANEED VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN- 686664.
ADDL. R4 AND R5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
04.03.2022 IN I.A. 1/2022 IN WP(C) 30326/2021
BY ADVS.SHRI.SUNU P. JOHN, SC, GRAMA PANCHAYAT
K.N.CHANDRABABU
SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

W.P.(C).No.30326/2021

¶12

¶13

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶14

W.P.(C).No.30326 of 2021

¶15

Dated this the 07^th day of July, 2022

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶18

i. Issue a writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to Exhibit P5 resolution and quash the same.

¶19

ii. To hold that petitioner is entitled to transport ordinary earth collected on the basis of Exhibit P3 permit.

¶20

iii. To hold that the 2^nd respondent has no right to obstruct petitioner in transporting ordinary earth from the 2^nd respondent gramapanchayath to outside.

¶21

iv. Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for in the circumstances of the case.

¶22

According to the petitioner, she is an 82 year old entrepreneur who had obtained all permits and licenses for the manufacturing of Packaged Drinking Water under the provisions of the Kerala Micro Small Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019. The petitioner was granted Ext.P1

¶23

W.P.(C).No.30326/2021

¶24

¶25

building permit for digging of well/ water treatment building. Ext.P2 development permit was also issued to the petitioner by the Panchayath. Ext.P3 issued by the 3^rd respondent permitted the petitioner to remove 3632 metric ordinary earth from the period 10.12.2021 to 18.12.2021. Even though ordinary earth was removed, the petitioner was obstructed by the Panchayath based on Ext.P5 resolution prohibiting transportation of ordinary earth from the areas of the Panchayath to outside. The 3^rd respondent is empowered under Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 to monitor the act of removing any material or minor mineral. It is also the case of the petitioner that the 2^nd respondent cannot usurp the powers vested on the 3^rd respondent and the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Shynymol v. State of Kerala [2012 (3) KHC 404]. Hence this writ petition is filed.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. I also heard the learned counsel for additional respondents 4 and 5.

¶27

W.P.(C).No.30326/2021

¶28

¶29

Admittedly the petitioner is having a building permit and a development permit. The petitioner also obtained permit from the 3^rd respondent to remove ordinary earth as evident by Ext.P3. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 resolution passed by the Panchayat by which the removal of the ordinary earth is restricted. It is the case of the petitioner that the Panchayat has no authority to pass such an order. After going through the judgment of this Court in Shynymol’s case (supra), I think there is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat submitted that there is no obstruction as alleged, and the building permit and development permit are already issued to the petitioner. The learned counsel for additional respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the petitioner is violating Ext.P3 order and removing sand beyond the limit. The learned counsel also submitted that they are doing quarrying work in that area. If there is any violation of Ext.P3 order, additional respondents 4 and 5 are free to approach the 3^rd respondent with a representation and if such a representation is received, the 3^rd respondent will do the

¶30

¶31

W.P.(C).No.30326/2021

¶32

needful. As far as Ext.P5 is concerned, the same is to be quashed.

¶33

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

¶34

Ext.P5 is set aside.

¶35

The petitioner is free to remove the ordinary earth based on the transit permit, if any, issued by the 3^rd respondent.

¶36

Additional respondents 4 and 5 are free to approach the 3^rd respondent if there is any violation of Ext.P3 order.

¶37

sd/-

¶38

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶39

¶40

W.P.(C).No.30326/2021

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30326/2021

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE SITE APPROVAL AND
BUILDING PERMIT DATED 28.09.2020.
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NO. A2-2516/20 DATED 09.09.2020.
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
233/21-22/DOE/1623/E2/2020
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
15.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 7
DATED 24.07.2007.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶44

Exhibit R2(a)TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
2.2.2021 SUBMITTED BY HEMA ANIL.
Exhibit R2(b)TRUE COPY OF THE PANCHAYATH EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE DECISION NO. 19/1 DATED
18.1.2021.
Exhibit R2(c)TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO. 20/1
DATED 18.1.2021 OF THE EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE OF R2.
Exhibit R4aA TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE WORK
CARRIED OUT BY THE PETITIONER AND THE
LATERITE STONE REMOVED FROM THE SAID
AREA.

Anandavalliamma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anandavalliamma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pauly Augustin Vs the Secretary, Parakkadavu Grama Panchayath

Sherly S.V Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Mathew, Vs State of Kerala

K.P. Ranjini Vs the Secretary, Thalassery Municipality

Ummayya Annangadan Vs the Malappuram Municipality

Mohanan Vs Rukmini