Allowed

Manju Joemon, v. the Malayattoor – Neeleeswaram Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC20 Jul 2023WP(C)/11007/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Panchayat notice requiring waste removal from an abandoned quarry. Court held the notice illegal since petitioner was not a partner in the firm owning the land and had no connection to the dumping. Notice set aside; Panchayat free to remove waste itself.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 notice dated 20.03.2023 issued by the Secretary to the Malayattoor-Neeleswaram Grama Panchayat set aside.

Manju Joemon, Vs the Malayattoor – Neeleeswaram… — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 11007 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MANJU JOEMON, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.LATE JOEMON JOSEPH, EDATHALA HOUSE, NEELEESWARAM P.O., KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 683574.

¶8

BY ADVS. BABU S. NAIR SMITHA BABU

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE MALAYATTOOR - NEELEESWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEELEESWARAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683574.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, MALAYATTOOR - NEELEESWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,NEELEESWARAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 683574.

¶12

BY ADVS. P.MOHANDAS P.,STANDING COUNSEL K.SUDHINKUMAR SABU PULLAN R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

W.P.(C) No.11007 of 2023

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

Dated this the 20^th day of July, 2023

¶18

The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by Ext.P3 notice dated 20.03.2023, issued by the Secretary to the MalayattoorNeeleswaram Grama Panchayat. By Ext.P3, the petitioner was required to remove the waste dumped in the abandoned quarry situated within the Grama Panchayat area. The petitioner was cautioned that the action of the petitioner dumping waste in the quarry is violative of Sections 219S and 219T of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

¶19

The petitioner states that the petitioner's husband was running a quarry in the area under a Partnership Deed. The petitioner's husband quit the Partnership and the Partnership was reconstituted in the year 2015. Thereafter, the petitioner's husband passed away in the year 2018. The petitioner was never a Partner

¶20

W.P.(C) No.11007 of 2023

¶21

¶22

of M/s.Vijaya Quarry Works, in whose name the land in question is situated. Therefore, Ext.P3 served on the petitioner is illegal and unsustainable.

¶23

The Senior Counsel representing the Standing Counsel for the Panchayat entered appearance and submitted that large scale dumping of hazardous waste in the quarrying area is causing serious threat to the public health in the Panchayat. Therefore, the Panchayat issued Ext.P2 notice to the Managing Partner of M/s.Vijaya Quarry Works. As there was no response from the said Partner, Ext.P3 notice was issued to the petitioner. Ext.P3 was issued to the petitioner as the petitioner's husband was admittedly a Partner of the Firm earlier. The Panchayat Authorities are not aware of the reconstitution and internal matters of the Partnership. If the petitioner submits that she is not a Partner of M/s. Vijaya Quarry Works and has no connection with the dumping of waste, then the Panchayat does not propose to

¶24

¶25

W.P.(C) No.11007 of 2023

¶26

proceed against the petitioner.

¶27

In view of the facts as stated above and taking into

¶28

consideration the fact that the ownership of the land where the abandoned quarry is situated is in the name of a Partnership in

¶29

which the petitioner has no share, Ext.P3 proceedings cannot be sustained. Ext.P3 is therefore set aside. It is made clear that the Panchayat Authorities will be at liberty to remove the waste from the quarrying area in accordance with the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Rules.

¶30

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

ams

W.P.(C) No.11007 of 2023

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11007/2023

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY O NO.919/2015 SREEMOOLANAGARAM	F THE OF DATED,	TRANSFER DEED THE S.R 10-4-2015	AS .O.,
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF MANAGING PARTNE WORKS BY THE 2N 2023	THE NO R OF D RESPO	TICE ISSUED TO M/S.VIJAYA QU NDENT DATED, 1	THE ARRY 8-3-
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF 2ND RESPONDENT PETITIONER	THE NO DATED,	TICE ISSUED BY 20-3-2023 TO	THE THE

Manju Joemon, v. the Malayattoor – Neeleeswaram Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Joemon, v. the Malayattoor – Neeleeswaram Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaicky A.R Vs Shaji N. K

.P.M. Ravi Vs Shibin William Varghese

Praseeda Venu Vs Vishnu Raj P

Ragu.K.B Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

M/S.Marath Enterprises and Crushers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Kerala.

Abin Sha Ks Vs Kalamassery Municipality