Dismissed

.P.M. Ravi v. Shibin William Varghese

Kerala HC19 Jul 2023RP/494/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petitioners challenged a judgment granting police protection to quarry operators, alleging non-argument, fraudulent permissions, and environmental law violations. The court rejected these claims, dismissing the review while preserving statutory remedy rights.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed without prejudice to the right to approach competent statutory authorities for redressal.

.P.M. Ravi Vs Shibin William Varghese — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

RP NO. 494 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 10741/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8

¶8

1 P.M. RAVI

¶9

PLAVILA PUTHENVEETIL,PULIKKAL COLONY, WARD NO 5, PARATHANAM P.O, KOOTTICKAL, PIN - 686514

¶10

2 ROYCHAN M.V MUNDAPLAKKAL VEETIL, PULIKKAL COLONY, WARD NO 5, PARATHANAM P.O, KOOTTICKAL, PIN - 686514

¶11

3 SHANTY THOMAS @ SHANTY ROY W/O ROYCHAN M.V., MUNDAPLAKKAL VEETIL, PULIKKAL COLONY, WARD NO 5,PARATHANAM P.O, KOOTTICKAL, PIN - 686514

¶12

4 JOHNS P.J PUTHUPARAMBIL VEEDU,CHITTADI P.O, CHOTTY, PIN – 686513

¶13

BY ADVS.
K.A.HASSAN
JULIA PRIYA RESHMY
T.SAJAYAN JACOB

¶14

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1-4 AND 9-11:

¶15

1 SHIBIN WILLIAM VARGHESE S/O LATE N.V.VARGHESE, SHIBIN VILLA, VETTICODE P.O, KATTANAM, MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690503

¶16

2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695014

¶17

RP No.494 of 2023

¶18

in

¶19

W.P.(C) No.10741 of 2023

¶20

¶21

3 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF DISTRICT POLICE HEADQUARTERS, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686002

¶22

4 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KANJIRAPALLY P.O, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686507

¶23

5 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MUNDAKAYAM POLICE STATION, MUNDAKAYAM P.O, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686513

¶24

6 NIJASH, MEMBER, TIPPER LORRY ASSOCIATION, CHITTADI 31 MILE, MUNDAKAYAM, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686513

¶25

7 BIJU MEMBER, TIPPER LORRY ASSOCIATION, CHITTADI 31 MILE, MUNDAKAYAM, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686513

¶26

8 SUJITH MEMBER, TIPPER LORRY ASSOCIATION, CHITTADI 31 MILE, MUNDAKAYAM, KOTTAYAM., PIN – 686513

¶27

BY ADV B.MOHANLAL
ADV AMMINIKUTTY -SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶28

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶29

RP No.494 of 2023
 in
W.P.(C) No.10741 of 2023

¶30

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Dated this the 19^th day of July, 2023

¶33

Respondents 5 to 8 in the writ petition have filed this review petition aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.04.2023 in W.P.(C) No.10741 of 2023.

¶34

The review petitioners state that they could not

¶35

make representation on the hearing date on an assumption that for representing the matter, they would be given time to file a counter affidavit. However, Vakalat was registered for the review petitioners in the writ petition. Immediately noting the disposal of the case, counsel for the review petitioners submitted in the open Court that they had valid grounds to be urged for not granting police protection or any other relief prayed for by the writ petitioners. The case was posted to 10.04.2023 as “to be spoken to” for pronouncing the orders. The impugned judgment was passed without appreciating the

¶36

¶37

RP No.494 of 2023
 in
W.P.(C) No.10741 of 2023

¶38

arguments of the review petitioners. On these grounds, the review petition has been filed. The counsel for the review petitioners submitted that as the review petitioners were not heard at the time of disposal of the writ petition, substantial prejudice has been caused to the review petitioners.

¶39

On merits, the counsel for the review petitioners submitted that the writ petitioner is conducting a Quarry on the basis of Ext.P1 Environmental Clearance. An application for Environmental Clearance was made only on 11.07.2022. Ext.P1 would indicate that a field inspection in respect of the Quarry was conducted by the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority on 04.09.2020, which is before the date of application submitted by the petitioner. Hence, it is evident that Ext.P1 has been obtained in a fraudulent manner.

¶40

The counsel for the review petitioners submitted that the District Geologist has issued Ext.P2 Quarrying Permit without verifying the conditions stipulated in Ext.P1 Environmental Clearance and without causing a site

¶41

RP No.494 of 2023
 in
W.P.(C) No.10741 of 2023
5

¶42

inspection. Ext.P1 Environmental Clearance lays down 51 conditions to be followed by the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner has not followed the conditions stipulated at Serial Nos.27, 29, 39, 43 and 53. In that view of the matter, this Court ought not have granted a police protection to the writ petitioner.

¶43

The counsel for the review petitioners further submitted that the Kerala State Pollution Control Board has issued Consent and that too was without causing a site inspection. Ext.P4 licence has been issued by the Parathode Grama Panchayat, whereas the writ petitioner’s Unit is functioning in Mundakkayam Panchayat. Exts.P7 and P8 would indicate that the Unit is functioning in the Mundakkayam Panchayat. Therefore, on the basis of a licence obtained from the Parathode Grama Panchayat, the writ petitioner cannot run the Unit.

¶44

The counsel for the review petitioners further pointed out that Ext.P5 Explosives Licence has been issued

¶45

RP No.494 of 2023
 in
W.P.(C) No.10741 of 2023
6

¶46

without ascertaining whether there is an explosives magazine for storage of explosives material. The counsel for the review petitioners further pointed out that though the writ petitioner has stated that he has filed Ext.P9 police complaint, no receipt of acknowledgment from the Police Station has been produced. Ext.P9 is therefore a doubtful material. Ext.P10 Purchase Orders produced by the petitioner are also not genuine and reliable. In view of the afore facts, this Court ought not have granted a police protection in the writ petition. The judgment dated 04.04.2023 is liable to be recalled and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, contended the counsel for the review petitioners.

¶47

I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 2 to 5.

¶48

Perusing the pleadings in the review petition, I find that the officers have conducted a field inspection on

¶49

RP No.494 of 2023

¶50

 in
W.P.(C) No.10741 of 2023
7

¶51

04.09.2020. Ext.P1 application is alleged to have been submitted only on 02.04.2022. However, Ext.P1 Environmental Clearance Certificate would indicate that the petitioner had submitted offline application for Environmental Clearance on 12.07.2019. Therefore, the said contention cannot be sustained.

¶52

Ext.P2 is the Quarrying Permit issued by the District Geologist. Ext.P2 Quarrying Permit has been issued on a condition that permit holder shall strictly adhere to the conditions in Environmental Clearance dated 11.07.2022 of the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. If the review petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P2, they have a statutory alternate remedy of appeal under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. The review petitioners have to resort to statutory remedies and they cannot take law into their hands to obstruct the activities of the Quarrying Unit, when prima facie the writ petitioner holds all requisite licences.

¶53

¶54

RP No.494 of 2023
 in
W.P.(C) No.10741 of 2023

¶55

The contention of the review petitioners is that the writ petitioner is not adhering to condition Nos.27, 29, 39, 43 and 53 of Ext.P1 Environmental Clearance. The condition at Clause 27 relates to maintaining noise levels below 85 dBA. The condition at Clause 29 is relating to regular monitoring of flow rates and water quality upstream and downstream.

¶56

Condition No.39 provides that fugitive dust emissions from all the sources should be controlled regularly. Condition No.43 is relating to occupational health hazard of workers. Condition No.53 is to the effect that the Environmental Clearance will be subject to final orders of the courts in any pending litigation related to the land or project, in any court of law.

¶57

The conditions at Serial Nos.27, 29, 39 and 43 are conditions which can be followed only after starting functioning of the Quarrying Unit. The petitioner approached this Court filing the writ petition for police protection for carrying out the quarrying operations. Therefore, any violation

¶58

¶59

RP No.494 of 2023
 in
W.P.(C) No.10741 of 2023

¶60

of Clauses 27, 29, 39 and 43 will be violations, which occurred subsequent to the starting of the quarrying operations by the writ petitioner. If the writ petitioner has violated any conditions subsequent to the issue of Environmental Clearance and subsequent to the functioning of the Quarry, the review petitioners are at liberty to approach the competent authorities including the Kerala State Pollution Control Board alleging violation of the conditions. However, that cannot be a reason to seek review of the judgment in question.

¶61

13 Serial No.53 in Ext.P1 provides that Environmental Clearance will be subject to the final orders of the Courts in any pending litigation. As the condition is relating to “pending litigation”, the said Ext.P1 does not take in W.P.(C) No.10741 of 2023 from which this review petition arises, within its ambit.

¶62

The review petitioners would submit that Ext.P3 Consent has been issued by the Pollution Control Board without site inspection. I do not find any reason to assume from Ext.P3 that no site inspection was conducted by the

¶63

RP No.494 of 2023
 in
W.P.(C) No.10741 of 2023
10

¶64

Pollution Control Board while issuing Ext.P3.

¶65

As regards the licence issued by the Parathode Panchayat, the writ petitioner would contend that the quarrying activities are taking place mainly within the limits of the Parathode Panchayat and for that reason, the writ petitioner has obtained licence from the Parathode Panchayat. However, transportation and storage of the minerals spread over to Mundakkayam Panchayat. Therefore, in Exts.P7 and P8, the name of the Panchayat is shown as Mundakkayam Panchayat. If the review petitioners have a definite grievance that the writ petitioner is required to obtain a licence from the Mundakkayam Panchayat or that if the writ petitioner is conducting activities without obtaining any licence from the Mundakkayam Panchayat, it will be open to the review petitioners to approach the Mundakkayam Panchayat with appropriate complaints.

¶66

Prima facie, I am satisfied that the writ petitioner is running the Industrial Unit after obtaining permissions from the

¶67

RP No.494 of 2023
 in
W.P.(C) No.10741 of 2023

¶68

Kerala State Pollution Control Board, the Kerala State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, the District Geologist, Grama Panchayat and the Deputy Controller of Explosives.

¶69

In view of the above, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.10741 of 2023. The review petition is therefore dismissed. It is made clear that this will be without prejudice to the right of the review petitioners to approach the competent statutory authorities for redressal of their grievance, if any.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

spk

RP No.494 of 2023

¶75

in

¶76

W.P.(C) No.10741 of 2023

¶77

¶78

APPENDIX OF RP 494/2023

¶79

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶80

Annexure A1THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
DATED 4.4.23 IN W.P.C.NO 10741/2023
Annexure A2THE TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
IN FAVOUR F MRS. SHEELA A.MATHEW

¶81

Annexure A3THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY
THE MUNDAKAYAM VILLAGE OFFICER DATED
2.12.21

¶82

Annexure A4THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED
BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTYAM
SHOWING THE CONSEQUENCE OF MINING OF
GRANITE AT THE INSTANCE OF THIS
RESPONDENT BY THE RESIDENCE OF WARD 4
AND 5 OF PARATHODE PANCHAYAT

¶83

Annexure A5THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
28.6.18 FROM THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE
AND INDUSTRY, PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES
SAFETY ORGANIZATION (PESO)

¶84

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶85

Exhibit-R1(a)THE TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
DATED 23/05/2017 EXECUTED BY JAMES
KURISHUMMOOTTIL SEBASTIAN IN FAVOUR OF
SHEELA MATHEW ALONG WITH THE TYPED
COPY OF THE SAME

.P.M. Ravi v. Shibin William Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

.P.M. Ravi v. Shibin William Varghese

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

Arvind Singhal, Vs the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions

K.V. Sasidharan Nair S/O Velayudhan Nair Vs 1. Pampady Grama Panchayat, Represented by Its Secretary

Anjali Ravindran Vs the Erumely Grama Panchayat Represented by Its Secretary

Jaicky A.R Vs Shaji N. K

Praseeda Venu Vs Vishnu Raj P

K. Vijayalakshmi Vs Chelsa Sini. v