Dismissed

Roy George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jun 2023WP(C)/809/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala rejected the petitioner's writ petition challenging a No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the Executive Engineer for granite quarrying operations near a water tank. The Court held that the competent authority properly issued the NOC after inspection, as the quarry applicant warranted liability for any damage to the water tank.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no merit being found in the challenges to the No Objection Certificate.

Roy George Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

WP(C) NO. 809 OF 2023 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶6

WP(C) NO. 809 OF 2023

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

ROY GEORGE, AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. VARKEY LUKA, AGED 48 YEARS, ELAVANTHIYIL
HOUSE, KUDAKKACHIRA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE, MEENACHIL
TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686635
BY ADVS.
P.C.HARIDAS
P.S.GOVIND

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, RREPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL SELF-GOVERN MENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.

¶11

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION PUBLIC OFFICES COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033.

¶12

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION MINI CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001

¶13

4 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY JALABHAVAN, VALLAYMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAMREPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033

¶14

5 KAROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PONADU, KAROOR PO, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 686574.

¶15

6UNNIKRISHNAN, SIVAVILASAM, VALLICHIRA PO,
MEANACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686574
BY ADVS.
SUNIL CYRIAC
Shaji Thomas
MOHAN PULIKKAL(K/64A/1985)
JEN JAISON(K/000208/2017)
VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶17

ON 09.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 809 OF 2023 2

¶19

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶20

WP(C) No.809 of 2023

¶21

Dated this the 9th day of June, 2023

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶24

(I) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for all records leading up to Ext.P2 and to quash Ext.P2;

¶25

th (ii) To declare that the properties of the 6 respondent is not suitable for any quarrying operations, because of its proximity with the water tank.

¶26

Iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 5 to prevent the 6th respondent from conducting any quarrying operation in his property on the basis of Ext.P2.

¶27

(iv) To grant such other reliefs which this Honourable Court deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of the petitioner.

¶28

(SIC)

¶29

WP(C) NO. 809 OF 2023 3

¶30

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 NOC issued

¶31

by the third respondent. Sixth respondent has taken steps to conduct a granite quarry in his property, by using explosives with the help of Ext.P2 NOC is the submission. The properties of the 6th respondent are situated at the lower level of a hill. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, there is a water tank constructed by the 4th respondent for distribution of drinking water in this area very close to the proposed quarry site. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the aerial distance between the property of the 6th respondent and the water tank is only 250 meter. th Now the water supply scheme is maintained by the 5 respondent. It is submitted that the 6th respondent had applied for NOC under Section 40 (2) of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003. The 3rd respondent issued Exhibit P2 NOC to the 6th respondent, without conducting any proper enquiry and without application of mind, is the submission. It is further submitted that, when

¶32

th the water supply scheme is implemented by the 4

¶33

WP(C) NO. 809 OF 2023 4

¶34

respondent and is being maintained by the 5th respondent, the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction or authority to issue NOC. Hence, this writ petition.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in this writ petition. The learned counsel also submitted that, Ext.P2 NOC issued by the third respondent is not a speaking order and the points raised by the petitioner is not considered in Ext.P2 NOC. The water tank is situated about 250 meters aerial distance from the proposed quarry is the submission. The learned counsel also submitted that if a quarry is permitted in this area, there is danger to the life of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the drinking water facility of the petitioner will also be affected, if something happened in the quarry.

¶37

The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit naratting the facts. The 6th respondent also filed counter affidavit. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that the person who sworn the affidavit is not

¶38

WP(C) NO. 809 OF 2023 5

¶39

a person who had issued Ext.P2 NOC.

¶40

This court has considered the contentions of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent. This court also considered Ext.P2. As per Ext.R3(a), the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department is authorised to issue the NOC as per GO(P)NO.1/2016/WRD dated 14.01.2016. Therefore, there is proper authorisation to the Executive Engineer to issue Ext.P2 NOC. Moreover, Ext.Ext.R3(a) is the agreement executed in continuation of Ext.P2 by the sixth respondent. It will be better to extract to clause 12 of Ext.R3(a).

¶41

"ഖനനംനടത ്ത ാനുദ�ശിക ്ദേ ുന ്ക ്ന സ ്ഥ ലത ്ത ിന് 280 മീറ ്റ ർദൂരത ്ത ിൽസ ്ഥ ിതി ച െ �യ്യുന ്ന കരൂർഗ്രാമപഞ്�ായത ്ത ിച! െ കുടിച െ "ള ്ള പദ ്ധ തിയുച െ ടജല "ിതരണ ടാങ ്ക ിന് ദ ്ദേ കടുപാടുകൾ "രാച െ ത മുൻകരുതലുകൾ എടുദ ്ദേ ക ്ക ണ ്ട താണ്. ഏച െ തങ ്ക ിലും"ിധത ്ത ിൽദ ്ദേ കടുപാടുകൾസംഭ"ിച ്ച ാൽ അതിച! െ പൂർണ ്ണ ഉത ്ത ര"ാദിത്"ംഏചറ െ ്റ ടൂത ് ത ബന ്ധ ച6ട െ ്ട ഏജൻസികൾ നഷ ്ട പരിഹാരം നൽകുകദ ്ദേ യാ, പുനർ നിർമ ്മ ാണം നടതുകദ ്ത ്ദേ യാ ച െ �യ്ദ ്ദേ യണ ്ട �ുമതലക്"ാറിഉടമയിൽനിക ്ഷ ിപ ്ത മായിരികും ്ക ".

¶42

From the above clause, it is clear that the sixth respondent is responsible if anything happened to the water tank. In such circumstances, the apprehension of the petitioner is without any basis. Moreover, the competent authority, after inspecting the property issued Ext.P2 NOC. In

¶43

WP(C) NO. 809 OF 2023 6

¶44

such circumstances, this court need not invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in such cases to interdict an NOC issued by the competent authority. I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶47

R.AV

¶48

WP(C) NO. 809 OF 2023 7

¶49

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 809/2023

¶50

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶51

Exhibit-P1TRUE COPY OF WATER BILL DATED 06/09/2022
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶52

Exhibit-P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/12/2022
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶53

EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF INSPECTION REPORT OF
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR
IRRIGATION SUBDIVISION, PALA

¶54

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶55

EXHIBIT R3 (a)A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.
37/EE/2022-23 DATED 02.12.2022.

¶56

EXHIBIT R3 (b)A TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN.
Exhibit R6(a)True photocopy of the GO(P) No.
1/2016/WRD dated 14.01.2016 of the
Government of Kerala, Water Resources
(MI) Department.

¶57

Exhibit R6(b)True photocopy of the judgment of this
Hon'ble Court in W.P(C) No. 22390/2022
dated 29.07.2022.

Roy George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roy George 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramisha.K.P Vs the Director of General Education

Vrinda Sekhar Vs State of Kerala

Sreeja K.R Vs State of Kerala

K.Ayyappan Nair Vs Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd.

P.K. Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

Basheer V.K Vs the District Collector