Dismissed

T.M.Sadan, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Apr 2023WP(C)/12409/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus against authorities for inaction regarding alleged illegal clay excavation from paddy fields. Based on District Collector report that lands were not paddy fields, the court dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

T.M.Sadan, Vs State of Kerala — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶3

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 12409 OF 2020

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

T.M.SADAN,
S/O.MANIYAN, THAKARAKANDATHIL HOUSE,
PERUVA P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 610.

¶7

BY ADVS.
PHILIP T.VARGHESE
SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE
SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
SMT.V.T.LITHA
SMT.K.R.MONISHA
SMT.SHRUTHI SARA JACOB

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

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

¶10

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM - 686 002.

¶11

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA, PIN - 686 575.

¶12

4 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), VAIKOM - 686 141.

¶13

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MULAKULAM - 686 664.

¶14

6 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VELLOOR - 686 501.

¶15

7 MULAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERUVA P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 610.

¶16

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶17

¶18

8 THE SECRETARY, MULAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PERUVA P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 610.

¶19

9 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST MINING AND GEOLOGY, KOTTAYAM - 686 002.

¶20

10 SARADA K.K. @ SARADA SUKUMARAN KUTTIKKATTIL HOUSE, MULAKULAM SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 610.

¶21

11 M.K.PRATHAPAN S/O.KARUNAKARAN, MOOTHEDATHU HOUSE, MEVALLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 609.

¶22

12 P.C.JOBY S/O.CHACKO C.K. @ CHACKOCHAN, PAPPINISSERIL HOUSE, KARIKKODU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 610.

¶23

13 T.K.BINOY S/O.KURIEN, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, MEVALLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 609.

¶24

14 SHIJO

¶25

S/O.SUKUMARAN, KUTTIKKATTIL HOUSE, MULAKULAM SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 610.

¶26

15 P.V.ELIAS S/O.VARGHESE, PARASSERIL HOUSE, MULAKULAM SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 610.

¶27

16 M.S.MANI S/O.SANKU, MOOTHEDATHU HOUSE, MEVALLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 609.

¶28

17 M.V.RAJAN S/O.KUNJUVARKEY, MOOZEDATHUMURANTHOOKIL, SOUTH MULAKULAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 610.

¶29

18 LIJU REEBA VARGHESE W/O.LATE VARGHESE K.ABRAHAM, KARAMEL HOUSE, MULAKULAM SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 610.

¶30

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶31

¶32

19NISHA PHILIP
D/O.K.V.ABRAHAM, PARAMBIL HOUSE,
OLASSA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 014.

¶33

20ASWATHY
D/O.K.V.ABRAHAM, KARAMEL HOUSE,
MULAKULAM SOUTH P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 610.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA
SRI.P.P.JACOB
SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
SRI.K.M.RAPHY
SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN
SRI.T.N.MANOJ
SMT.SARITHA THOMAS
SRI.V. TEKCHAND, SR. GP

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶36

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Dated this the 12^th day of April, 2023

¶39

S.Manikumar, C.J.

¶40

The petitioner, a social worker, has been trying to prevent the illegal conversion of paddy fields within the limits of the 7^th respondent – Mulakulam Panchayat. It is stated that there were many unlicensed brick manufacturing units functioning within the limits of the 7^th respondent Panchayat and they were illegally extracting clay from the paddy fields for their functioning. In W.P.(C)No.6108 of 2009, filed by the petitioner, this court passed Exhibit P1 Judgment directing the 7^th respondent Panchayat to ensure that clay from paddy fields in the Panchayat are not removed resulting in its damage and in view of the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008.

¶41

The petitioner has submitted that he thereafter approached the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions in 2012, aggrieved by the functioning of 14 unlicensed brick manufacturing units within the limits of the 7^th respondent Panchayat and which was resulted in the

¶42

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶43

¶44

closure of 14 unlicensed brick manufacturing units, as can be seen from Exhibit P2 order of the Ombudsman.

¶45

It is submitted that the 7^th respondent Panchayat is now issuing license for conducting brick manufacturing units only for the period of three months every year and without granting permission for excavation of soil or clay from within the Panchayat area. The 7^th respondent issued licenses to respondents 10 to 13 for conducting brick manufacturing unit within its limits for the period from 01.01.2020 to 31.03.2020 with the stipulation that clay from outside the Panchayat limits alone should be used and there should not be any excavation in the Panchayat area.

¶46

Petitioner has further submitted that respondents 10 to 13, with the assistance of respondents 14 to 16, have effected massive excavation of clay and soil from the paddy fields. There has been illegal excavation from the properties of respondents 17 to 20 also by respondents 10 to 16. On the complaint of the petitioner, the Tahsildar (Land Records), Vaikom/4^th respondent issued Exhibits P5 to P9 prohibitory orders against respondents 10 to 20. Exhibits P10 and P11

¶47

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶48

¶49

reports submitted by the Village OfÏcer, Mulakulam/5^th respondent to the 4^th respondent Tahsildar would reveal that illegal excavation of soil has been conducted by respondents 10 to 20. Respondents 2 to 9 have not taken any action pursuant to Exhibits P5 to P9 orders and Exhibits P10, P11 and P13 reports or on the report mentioned in Exhibit P14 reply. Further the 8^th respondent, who is the Secretary of the 7^th respondent Panchayat, has aided and abetted the violators and has falsely asserted in Exhibit P4 reply given to the petitioner that no excavation has taken place. Hence this writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

¶50

“i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the respondents 2 to 5 to take further proceedings, pursuant to Exhibit P5 to P9 Orders and Exhibits P10, P11 and P13 reports and the report referred to in Exhibit P14 reply;

¶51

ii. issue a writ of mandamus to respondents 2 to 6 to initiate prosecution against the persons who have Violated the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act by converting paddy land within the limits of 7^th respondent Panchayat and proceed against them and for imposition of penalty under Section 23 of the Act;

¶52

iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ

¶53

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶54

¶55

or direction to the 1^st respondent to conduct enquiry and proceed against the members of staff of the 7th respondent responsible for the false assertions made in Exhibit P4 reply, the falsity of which is evidenced by Exhibits P5 to P9 prohibitory orders, Exhibits P10, P11 and P13 reports and Exhibit P12 and P14 letters for their dereliction of duty.”

¶56

A counter afÏdavit dated 17.07.2020 has been filed by respondent Nos.14 and 15.

¶57

Relevant portion of the counter afÏdavit reads thus:

¶58

“5. These respondents deny the averments contained in paragraphs 1 to 5 in the above writ petition as incorrect, misleading and which are to be proved by the petitioner. The averments in the above paragraphs would show that the petitioner is harassing these respondents who are conducting bricks manufacturing unit, legally and observing all rules and regulations.

¶59

Respondents 12, 14 and 15 are conducting brick manufacturing unit in Mulakulam Panchayath for the last few years. The present brick manufacturing unit is licensed in favour of 12^th respondent/P. C. Joby. The unit is being operated by 15^th respondent/P. V. Elias on the basis of written consent dated 18/02/2017 given by 12^th respondent/P. C. Joby and a true copy of the said consent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-Rl5-A.

¶60

The said brick manufacturing unit is situated in old Sy. No. 419/1C and new resurvey No. 79/5 of Mulakulam Village in Kottayam District. The said property is not a paddy land and it is a garden land/Purayidam. A true copy of the possession certificate No. 135/2020(3) dated 29/01/2020 issued by the Mulakulam Village OfÏcer is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R15-B.

¶61

Ext. R15/B would show that the said property is a garden

¶62

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶63

¶64

land/Purayidam and its old Sy. No. is 419/1C in Mulakulam Village.

¶65

These respondents are conducting the brick manufacturing unit in the said property in old Sy. No. 419/1C and new resurvey No. 79/5 of Mulakulam Village on the basis of valid licenses and observing all the rules and regulations in this regard.

¶66

Brick manufacturing is a seasonal activity and the brick kiln is made within a month time and the kiln need to be burned only for few days.

¶67

In this year, the brick manufacturing activity was done only for a period of about 45 days in the month February and March of 2020.

¶68

A true copy of trade license No. 372/2019-20 dated 12/02/2020 issued by the Mulakulam Grama Panchayath/7th respondent for conducting the brick manufacturing activity is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R15-C.

¶69

Kerala State Pollution Control Board has granted consent to operate the brick manufacturing activity of this respondents. The consent granted is being renewed periodically. A true copy of the consent variation order No. 12626369/IC0-R7/2020 dated 28/01/2020 issued by the Environmental Engineer, Kottayamn of Kerala State Pollution Control Board is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R15-D.

¶70

The Department of Factories and Boilers of Government of Kerala has also inspected the bricks manufacturing unit and brick kiln of these respondents and permitted to conduct the activity. A true copy of license No. D06/KTM/06/521/2014 dated 12/02/2020 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-RI5-E.

¶71

These respondents are not mining earth/brick clay from paddy fields to make brick. Whereas earth/brick clay is brought from other properties/garden lands where it is available.

¶72

These respondents are bringing earth/brick clay from outside areas. Lastly, the petitioners brought earth/brick clay from Edapally, Aluva in Ernakulam District.

¶73

These respondents are having valid permits issued from

¶74

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶75

¶76

District Geologist/9th respondent to bring and a true copy of certificate of registration bearing No. 87/2015-16/RBC/2678/DOY/ML2015 dated 20/01/2016 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R15-F. Ext. R15/F/certificate of registration is valid till 19/01/2021.

¶77

Subsequent to Ext. R15/F, 12th respondent/P. C. Joby obtained dealer's license from the Geologist, Kottayam to stoke, sell etc. of brick clay in the property in Sy. No. 419/1C. A true copy of the dealer's license bearing No. 132/2017-18/BC/DL/256/DOY/ML/2017 dated 02/03/2018 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R15-G.

¶78

The brick manufacturing unit in this case is situated in the border village of Ernakulam and Kottayam Districts. These respondents brought brick clay, taken from the property in Sy. No. 167/4A of Edapally South in Ernakulam District and other properties by using mineral transit pass issued from the ofÏce of Geologist, Ernakulam.

¶79

A true copy of mineral transit passes bearing No. 271 to 280 dated 22/02/2019 issued by Geologist, Ernakulam are produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-RI5-H, Exhibit- R15-H(a) to Exhibit- R15-H (i) respectively.

¶80

A true copy of mineral transit passes bearing No. 321 to 330 dated 23/02/2019 issued by Geologist, Ernakulam are produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R15-I, ExhibitR15-I(a) to Exhibit- R15-I(i) respectively.

¶81

The earth/brick clay brought by 12th respondent/P. C. Joby on the basis of Ext R15-H and R15-I series of transit passes, was available for manufacturing brick in February 2020.

¶82

It is true that there were other illegal brick units, functioning in the Panchayath. But by the intervention of authorities, those illegal units have stopped their activities, way back in the year 2012. At present only a few units are functioning in Mulakulam Panchayath and which are legally conducting the activity on the basis of proper license/permit.

¶83

These respondents deny the averments contained in paragraphs 6 to 9 in the writ petition, as false and incorrect. The allegation that respondents 10 to 13, in association with respondents 14 to l6, have extracted huge

¶84

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶85

¶86

quantity of soil and clay from paddy fields, during February and March 2020 is absolutely false, without any basis and therefore denied. 25. As it is stated above, these respondents are conducting brick manufacturing activity in garden land/Purayidam and it is not at all necessary to extract brick clay from paddy land. Further, as seen from the documents sufÏcient and excess earth/brick clay is stored in the property of these respondents, brought from outside areas, on the basis of Ext. R15-H and I/ transit passes.

¶87

No action as alleged by the petitioner was taken against these respondents for alleged extraction of clay from paddy land.

¶88

These respondents are not doing any activity, so as to affect the ecological balance or environmental safety.

¶89

It is submitted in respect of Ext. P1/judgment that these respondents are obeying the directions contained therein. It is true that in obedience to Ext.P1 and P2/orders, 7th respondent/Panchayath has stopped other illegal brick manufacturing units in the Panchayath.

¶90

Ext. P3/complaint given by the petitioner is baseless and not with respect to the brick manufacturing unit of these respondents.

¶91

Ext. P4/report submitted by 8th respondent/Secretary would show that inspection was conducted in the bricks manufacturing units, including the unit of these respondents and no unit is found extracting brick clay from paddy field.

¶92

The allegation in Ext. P5/stop memo with respect to these respondents is factually incorrect and therefore denied. In response to Ext. P5/stop memo, these respondents submitted a reply dated 14/02/2020 to 4th respondent/ Tasildhar and a true copy of the said reply is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R15-J.

¶93

The property referred to in Ext. P5/stop memo is now situated in new resurvey No. 53/4 in Mulakulam Village. The resurvey was conducted about 2 years back in the village and the old Survey number of the said property was 416/1C in Mulakulam Village.

¶94

The said property namely old Sy. No. 416/1C (new

¶95

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶96

¶97

resurvey No. 53/4) is owned by respondents No. 12, 14 and 15. A true copy of the basic tax receipt No. 73606 dated 31/01/2018 in respect of the property in Sy. No. 416/1C is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R15-K. The said property is a Garden land/Purayidam as per revenue records as well.

¶98

Previously about 10 years back, a brick manufacturing unit was functioning in the said property as per license No. A4-451/2010 dated 03/02/2010 issued by 7th respondent/Panchayath and a true copy of the said license is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-R15-L. 9th respondent/Geologist has also issued Dealer's License No. 139/2011-2012/BC/DL/888/DOY/ML/2011 dated 4.7.2011. to stock and sell brick clay in the said property and a true copy of the said dealers license is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R15-M.

¶99

The alleged earth/brick clay referred to in Ext. P5/stop memo, is stored in the said property for bricks manufacturing unit when the same was conducted in that property as evidenced from Ext. R15-L/license and R15 M/dealer's license.

¶100

No earth/brick clay was extracted in the said property in Sy. No. 416/1C (new resurvey No. 53/4). The earth/brick clay seen available in the said property was stored previously for conducting the then unit, as the same was as licensed and permitted. Moreover the property in Sy. No. 416/1C (new resurvey No. 53/4) is not a paddy field. The said property was originally a Garden land as per revenue records. But when the resurvey was conducted about 2 years back, the authorities changed the nature of the said property in old Sy. 416/1C as paddy field, alleging that the surrounding properties are paddy fields and new resurvey no. 53/4 is allotted to the said property.

¶101

Ext. P6 to P9 are not relating to the property of these respondents.

¶102

Ext. P10/report, to the extent of paragraph No. 3 therein, is factually incorrect and therefore denied. The factual position and truth to the allegation that this respondent had extracted brick clay from paddy field in Sy. No. 53/4 is already explained in the above paragraphs No.

¶103

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶104

¶105

31 to 36. No mining activity is done in the said property, Even vehicles cannot be taken to the said property. This property is not a paddy field, but it was a Purayidam till recently. The nature of the said property is changed only recently, while conducting resurvey about 2 years back. A physical inspection in the said property would prove the above facts. The present Tahasildar, without appreciating the above factual position, submitted the above Ext. P10/report.

¶106

Ext. P11 to P15 are not relating to or not in respect of the bricks manufacturing unit of these respondents.

¶107

These respondents are properly, legally and with all license conducting the brick manufacturing unit in Sy. No, 419/1C (new resurvey No. 79/5), as seen from Ext. R15-I. 41. The grounds raised by the petitioner in grounds No. A to F are unsustainable in law and on facts, so far as these respondents are concerned.

¶108

These respondents are neither conducting brick manufacturing unit in paddy field nor mining any earth/brick clay from paddy field.

¶109

43.The petitioner is not entitled to get any relief against these respondents.”

¶110

Mulakulam Grama Panchayat and its Secretary,

¶111

respondents 7 and 8, have filed a counter afÏdavit dated 13.02.2023.

¶112

Relevant paragraphs of the counter afÏdavit are reproduced:

¶113

“4. The averments in para 3 of the Writ Petition by referring to Exhibit P 1 judgment, alleging that the 7th and 8th respondents have failed to prevent working of illegal brick kiln unit are incorrect. The Panchayath did not allow any unit to function without securing valid license. The illegal units

¶114

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶115

¶116

were closed as and when information received in the ofÏce of the 7th respondent. It was not easy for the respondents 7 and 8 to conduct each day inspection and they could react only when they receive complaints regarding the illegality due to the administrative exigencies and deficit in staff cadre. Therefore, the allegation that there was dereliction of duty as stated in paragraph 3 of the writ petition are denied as false.

¶117

The averments in paragraph 4 of the writ petition are not fully correct and hence denied. The 7^th respondent was issuing permits only on verification of the eligibility.

¶118

The allegation that only because of Appeal No. 189/2013, the 7^th and 8^th respondents started to regulate the clay mining activity is a false averment and hence denied. Actually sand mining and clay mining are matters to be regulated by the Mining & Geology Department, and they have effective machinery thereto.

¶119

The averments in paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition are not fully correct. The Panchayat has only limited power to reject an application for license if the application is in order under the Trade Licence Rules.

¶120

The averments in paragraph 6 of the Writ Petition are not fully correct and hence denied. As per the statutory conditions, if the respondents 10 to 13 were eligible, their applications should have been allowed by the 7th respondent. The illegal mining have never come to the notice of the respondents 7 and 8 and whenever it came, it was responded with appropriate preventive action from the ofÏce of the 7th respondent. Therefore, the allegations against the respondents 7 and 8 that they were permitting illegal mining of clay and soil are incorrect and hence denied. The averments based on Exhibit P-3 are not fully correct. Exhibit P-3 was responded positively and inspections were

¶121

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶122

¶123

conducted. It was responded that those Brick Kiln units were working with due license from the Panchayath and therefore, Exhibit P4 communication was issued after giving Stop memo to the private parties who were conducting Brick Kiln Units. The averment that the 8th respondent was deliberately shutting her eyes to the massive illegal excavation allegedly done by the respondents 10 to 20 is incorrect. The averment that the action taken as referred to in Exhibit P4 was an eye wash is a false averment and hence denied.

¶124

The petitioner also have no case that the alleged illegal mining of sand and clay was within the Brick Kiln premises. Therefore, the action referred to in Exhibit P-4 was correct. The respondents 7 and 8 have no mechanism to identify the source of clay or soil used in the Brick Kiln premises. Therefore, the allegations simply made against the respondents 7 and 8 by saying that there were actions by other authorities within the Brick Kiln premises is incorrect. It is not clear. Therefore, the averments regarding the allegations against the 7^th respondent based on Exhibit P-12 are incorrect and hence denied.

¶125

The averments based on Exhibits P-14 and P-15 against the respondents 7 and 8 are false and hence denied. The averments in paragraph 9 of the writ petition in so far as they are against the respondents 7 and 8 are false and hence denied.

¶126

The respondents 7 and 8 have already taken actions against the wrong doers as and when they get information regarding any illegality within the territory of the 7^th respondent.

¶127

The averments in Ground ‘A' in so far as the same are against the respondents 7 and 8 are not correct and hence denied. The averments in Ground ‘C' are incorrect and hence denied. The license was only in respect of Brick Kiln units on condition that they should bring raw materials from outside. Transportation and serving of raw materials were not the lookout of the respondents 7 and 8. Even though in case if a

¶128

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶129

¶130

specific data was given to the respondents 7 and 8 with reference to the alleged mining in paddy land, the same would be prevented then and there by the respondents 7 and 8.

¶131

The 7^th respondent was obliged to give license to the applicants who are complied with the statutory requirements. Assuming that there would be misuse, there is no option for a Panchayat to refuse any license. The 7th and 8th respondent was always careful in preventing any illegality within its territory and it was acting in tune with Ext. P-1 judgment only.

¶132

The averments in Grounds D and E in so far as they are against the respondents 7 and 8 are denied, as they are incorrect. The averments in Ground F are denied as false. In case of any violation of the conditions fixed in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy & Wet Land Act, 2008, the same would be taken care of by the respondents 7 and 8. It is further submitted that the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition are unsustainable so far if they are tried to be sustained on the basis of the false allegations against the respondents 7 and 8. He has not specifically averred anything to the effect that such actions were expected and such actions were not done by the respondents 7 and 8. Therefore, it is submitted that no penalty can be imposed on the respondents 7 and 8.

¶133

The respondents 7 and 8 have not failed to discharge their statutory duties as alleged in the Writ Petition and with reference to the prayers made in the Writ Petition. Therefore, it is most humbly submitted that the above Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶134

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶135

¶136

From the ofÏce of the respondents 7 and 8, there were repeated inspections have been conducted without fail to ascertain and verify whether there is any illegality in respect of functioning of any Brick Kiln unit within the territorial limits of the 7^th respondent Panchayath.

¶137

From the License Register, it is detected that Sarada Sukumaran, Kuttikkattil and M.K. Prathapan, Moothedath were given license on 18/01/2020 as License No. 352/201920 and 353/2019-20. One Binoy T.K., Thottathil and P.C. Jobby, Pappanassery were given license as per License No 359/2019-20 and 370/2019-20. During the year 2000 Mr. Prathapan and Sarada Sukumaran were given renewal of their licences. Sri M.K. Prathapan was further given renewal during 2022-23. Sarada Sukumaran made an application for renewal of her license and it was found that she was eligible for such renewal. However, she did not collect her license and her unit has not been working. At present the only unit of Sri. M.K. Prathapan is working and no other Brick kiln units are working. Therefore, it is submitted that the Writ Petition is not sustainable and it is liable to be dismissed want of any pending cause of action as well.”

¶138

Along with a memo dated 30.01.2023, a report of the District Collector, Kottayam has been submitted by the learned Senior Government Pleader, which is reproduced hereunder:

¶139

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶140

¶141

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶142

¶143

Report of the District Collector, Kottayam shows that

¶144

the properties, stated to be paddy fields, owned by the private respondents in which excavation of clay was alleged, are not paddy fields. They are purayidams. But they are not included

¶145

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶146

¶147

in the data bank of paddy or wetland.

¶148

Submission of the learned Senior Government

¶149

Pleader is that those shown as ‘nilam’ are also not shown in the data bank as ‘paddy field’.

¶150

Report goes to the root of the matter that the lands are not paddy fields and, therefore, the contentions of the petitioner are not substantiated.

¶151

Giving due consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and the report of the District Collector, this court is of

¶152

the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶153

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶154

Sd/-

¶155

S. Manikumar Chief Justice

¶156

Sd/-

¶157

Murali Purushothaman Judge

¶158

vpv

¶159

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶160

¶161

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12409/2020

¶162

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶163

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)` `NO.6108/2009 DATED 18/11/2011.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE` `OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT` `INSTITUTIONS IN O.P.NO.316/2012 DATED` `25/09/2012.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY` `THE PETITIONER TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED` `11/02/2020.`
`EXHIBIT P3(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF` `EXHIBIT P3.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A5/868/2020` `ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED` `10/03/2020.`
`EXHIBIT P4(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF` `EXHIBIT P4.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER ISSUED` `BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT TO RESPONDENTS 12, 14 AND 16` `DATED 10/02/2020.`
`EXHIBIT P5(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF` `EXHIBIT P5.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER ISSUED` `BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT TO RESPONDENTS 13 AND 16 DATED` `10/02/2020.`
`EXHIBIT P6(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF` `EXHIBIT P6.`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER ISSUED` `BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT TO RESPONDENTS 18 TO 20 DATED` `10/02/2020.`

¶164

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶165

¶166

`EXHIBIT P7(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `EXHIBIT P7.`	`ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `BY THE 5TH RESPON` `RESPONDENT TO RES` `11/02/2020.`	`PROHIBITORY ORDER ISSUED` `DENT ON BEHALF OF THE 4TH` `PONDENTS 13 TO 16 DATED`
`EXHIBIT P8(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `EXHIBIT P8.`	`ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `BY THE 5TH RESPON` `RESPONDENT TO THE` `11/02/2020.`	`PROHIBITORY ORDER ISSUED` `DENT ON BEHALF OF THE 4TH` `17TH RESPONDENT DATED`
`EXHIBIT P9(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `EXHIBIT P9.`	`ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `5TH RESPONDENT TO` `THE COMPLAINT OF` `11/02/2020.`	`REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE` `THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON` `THE PETITIONER DATED`
`EXHIBIT P10(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `EXHIBIT P10.`	`ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `5TH RESPONDENT TO` `THE COMPLAINT OF` `18/03/2020.`	`REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE` `THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON` `THE PETITIONER DATED`
`EXHIBIT P11(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `EXHIBIT P11.`	`ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF`
`EXHIBIT P12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `ISSUED BY THE 5TH` `RESPONDENT DATED`	`LETTER NO.108/2020(1)` `RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH` `20/03/2020.`
`EXHIBIT P12(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `EXHIBIT P12.`	`ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF`
`EXHIBIT P13`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `AGRICULTURAL OFFI` `DATED 18/03/2020.`	`REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE` `CER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT`

¶167

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶168

¶169

EXHIBIT P13(A)TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF
EXHIBIT P13.

¶170

`EXHIBIT P14`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `AGRICULTURAL OFFI` `PETITIONER DATED`	`REPLY ISSUED BY THE` `CER, MULAKULAM TO THE` `23/03/2020.`
`EXHIBIT P14(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `EXHIBIT P14.`	`ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF`
`EXHIBIT P15`	`TRUE COPIES OF PH` `2020 SHOWING ILLE` `MINING IN THE 7TH` `AREA.`	`OTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON MARCH` `GAL SOWING AND CLAY` `RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT`

¶171

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:

¶172

`EXHIBIT-R15/A`	`TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN CONSENT DATED` `18.02.2017.`
`EXHIBIT-R15/B`	`TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE` `NO.135/2020(3) DATED 29.01.2020 ISSUED BY` `THE MULAKULAM VILLAGE OFFICER.`
`EXHIBIT-R15/C`	`TRUE COPY OF TRADE LICENSE NO.372/2019-20` `DATED 12/02/2020 ISSUED BY THE MULAKULAM` `GRAMA PANCHAYATH/7TH RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT-R15/D`	`TRUE COPY OF CONSENT VARIATION ORDER` `NO.12626369/ICO-R7/2020 DATED 28/01/2020` `ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,` `KOTTAYAM OF KERALA STATE POLLUTION` `CONTROL BOARD.`
`EXHIBIT-R15/E`	`TRUE COPY OF LICENSE` `NO.D06/KTM/06/521/2014 DATED 12/02/2020.`
`EXHIBIT-R15/F`	`TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.` `87/2015-16/RBC/2678/DOY/ML/2015 DATED` `20.01.2016.`
`EXHIBIT-R15/G`	`TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE E BEARING` `NO.132/2017-18/BC/DL/256/DOY/ML/2017` `DATED 02.03.2018 ISSUED FROM DISTRICT` `GEOLOGIST/ 9TH RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT-R15/H`	`TRUE COPY OF MINERAL TRANSIT PASSES` `BEARING NO.271 DATED 22.02.2019 ISSUED BY` `GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.`

¶173

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶174

¶175

EXHIBIT-R15/H(A) TRUE COPY OF MINERAL TRANSIT PASSES BEARING NO.272 DATED 22.02.2019 ISSUED BY GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.

¶176

EXHIBIT-R15/H(B) TRUE COPY OF MINERAL TRANSIT PASSES BEARING NO.273 DATED 22.02.2019 ISSUED BY GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.

¶177

EXHIBIT-R15/H(C) TRUE COPY OF MINERAL TRANSIT PASSES BEARING NO.274 DATED 22.02.2019 ISSUED BY GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.

¶178

EXHIBIT-R15/H(D) TRUE COPY OF MINERAL TRANSIT PASSES BEARING NO.275 DATED 22.02.2019 ISSUED BY GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.

¶179

EXHIBIT-R15/H(E) TRUE COPY OF MINERAL TRANSIT PASSES BEARING NO.276 DATED 22.02.2019 ISSUED BY GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.

¶180

EXHIBIT-R15/H(F) TRUE COPY OF MINERAL TRANSIT PASSES BEARING NO.277 DATED 22.02.2019 ISSUED BY GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.

¶181

EXHIBIT-R15/H(G) TRUE COPY OF MINERAL TRANSIT PASSES BEARING NO.278 DATED 22.02.2019 ISSUED BY GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.

¶182

EXHIBIT-R15/H(H) TRUE COPY OF MINERAL TRANSIT PASSES BEARING NO.279 DATED 22.02.2019 ISSUED BY GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.

¶183

EXHIBIT-R15/H(I) TRUE COPY OF MINERAL TRANSIT PASSES BEARING NO.280 DATED 22.02.2019 ISSUED BY GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.

¶184

EXHIBIT-R15/I TRUE COPY OF MINERAL TRANSIT PASSES BEARING NO.321 DATED 23.02.2019 ISSUED BY GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.

¶185

EXHIBIT-R15/I(A) TRUE COPY OF MINERAL TRANSIT PASSES BEARING NO.322 DATED 23.02.2019 ISSUED BY GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.

¶186

EXHIBIT-R15/I(B) TRUE COPY OF MINERAL TRANSIT PASSES BEARING NO.323 DATED 23.02.2019 ISSUED BY GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.

¶187

W.P.(C)No.12409 of 2020

¶188

¶189

EXHIBIT-R15/I(C) TRUE COPY OF MINERAL TRANSIT PASSES BEARING NO.324 DATED 23.02.2019 ISSUED BY GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.

¶190

EXHIBIT-R15/I(D) TRUE COPY OF MINERAL TRANSIT PASSES BEARING NO.325 DATED 23.02.2019 ISSUED BY GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.

¶191

EXHIBIT-R15/I(E) TRUE COPY OF MINERAL TRANSIT PASSES BEARING NO.326 DATED 23.02.2019 ISSUED BY GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.

¶192

EXHIBIT-R15/I(F) TRUE COPY OF MINERAL TRANSIT PASSES BEARING NO.327 DATED 23.02.2019 ISSUED BY GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.

¶193

EXHIBIT-R15/I(G) TRUE COPY OF MINERAL TRANSIT PASSES BEARING NO.328 DATED 23.02.2019 ISSUED BY GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.

¶194

EXHIBIT-R15/I(H)TRUE COPY OF MINERAL TRANSIT PASSES
BEARING NO.329 DATED 23.02.2019 ISSUED BY
GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT-R15/I(I)TRUE COPY OF MINERAL TRANSIT PASSES
BEARING NO.330 DATED 23.02.2019 ISSUED BY
GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT-R15/JTRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 14/02/2020
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-R15/KTRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.73606
DATED 31.01.2018.
EXHIBIT-R15/LTRUE COPY OF LICENSE NO.A4-451/2010 DATED
03.02.2010 ISSUED BY 7TH RESPONDENT/
PANCHAYATH.

¶195

EXHIBIT-R15/MTRUE COPY OF DEALER’S LICENSE
NO.139/2011-2012/BC/DL/888/DOY/ML/2011
DATED 04.07.2011.

¶196

//TRUE COPY//

¶197

P.A. TO JUDGE

T.M.Sadan, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

T.M.Sadan, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.v.Sadanandan @ K.Puram Sadanandan Vs the State of Kerala

Sarosh P. Abraham Vs Jayan V.T.

University of Kerala Vs Amal v S

P.L Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Suresh @ Mankunnil Suresh Vs State of Kerala

George Vattukulam Vs Union of India