Partly allowed

K.R.Jose v. the District Geologist

Kerala HC21 Nov 2023WP(C)/24705/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala addressed a writ petition challenging a Panchayat's refusal to issue a mineral transit pass for earth removal permitted in a construction development permit. The Court ordered a site inspection applying the amended Rule 14 and set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order (Ext.P5) is set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to inspect the site, apply the amended Rule 14, and pass fresh orders within one month.

K.R.Jose Vs the District Geologist — Kerala HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 24705 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

K.R. JOSE
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. RAPPAI
KALLIYATHUPARAMBIL,
KONNAKUZHI (P. O), PARIYARAM,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 721.

¶7

BY ADVS.
BINOY VASUDEVAN
SREEJITH SREENATH

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, MINI CIVIL STATION, CHEMBOOKKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 020.

¶10

2 THE KODASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KODASSERY, CHATTIKULAM (P.O) THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 721.

¶11

3 THE SECRETARY KODASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT KODASSERY, CHATTIKULAM (P.O) THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 721.

¶12

SMT. DEEPA NARAYANAN – SR. GP
SMT. DAISY A. PHILIPOSE - SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.24705 OF 2023

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner is the owner in possession of an extent of 3 Ares and 65 Sq.Meter of land comprised in Survey No.1520/2-5 of Kuttichira Village, Chalakkudy Taluk, Thrissur District, as per Ext.P1 settlement deed. The petitioner submitted an application for building permit and development permit. Ext.P3 is the copy of the development permit. As per the same, permission was granted by the 2^nd respondent Panchayat for removal of 279.04 Cubic meters of earth for the purpose of construction of the building. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner approached the Panchayat for issuance of mineral transit pass. By Ext.P5, the 3^rd respondent rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that, for the purpose of construction of the building, it is not necessary to remove the earth from the plot. The petitioner impugns Ext.P5 on the ground that it has been passed without any application of

¶18

WP(C).No.24705 OF 2023

¶19

¶20

mind. It is also contended that after the issuance of development permit, the 3^rd respondent cannot refuse transit pass stating the aforesaid reason.

¶21

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. It is stated therein that amendment to Rule 14 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules (for short, ‘the Rules’) has been made with effect from 01.04.2023 and it is for the Panchayat to issue mineral transit pass in the case of buildings having plinth area up to 3000 Square feet

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that Ext.P5 order has been passed pursuant to an inspection report by the Assistant Engineer of the Panchayat, that too, before the amendment to Rule 14 of the Rules.

¶23

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the 3^rd respondent, Secretary of the Panchayat, to inspect the site and

¶24

WP(C).No.24705 OF 2023

¶25

¶26

ascertain whether ordinary earth that has to be

¶27

removed from the site pursuant to Ext.P3 development permit conforms to Rule 14 of the Rules and pass fresh orders on the application of the petitioner for issuance of transit permit. For the said purpose, Ext.P5 is set aside. Fresh orders, as above, shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶28

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶31

SPR

¶32

WP(C).No.24705 OF 2023

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS :-

¶36

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.3937 OF 1993
DATED 18.08.1993 S.R.O.CHALAKKUDY.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
16.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, KUTTICHIRA VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
BEARINGNO.A2-B.A(195031)2022DATED
13.06.2022.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED BUILDING PLAN
WHICH CONTAINS THE ENDORSEMENT BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT THAT HE HAS ISSUED A
BUILDINGPERMITVIDENO.A2-BA
(195031)/2022 DATED 12.06.2022 WHICH IS
VALID UPTO 12.06.2025.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.SC2,3600,3601/2023
DATED 16.06.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.

¶37

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.

K.R.Jose v. the District Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R.Jose v. the District Geologist

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

Joseph Mathew Vs Divisional Forest Officer

Ibrahim, Vs Divisional Forest Officer

S.M Arif Vs Special Tahasildar, La(Nh)

Union Bank of India, Vs the Sub Registrar

Rosily Jose Vs the District Geologist

Sajeesh.a Vs Nedumpana Grama Panchayath