IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 866 of 2009(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- J.KRISHNAMOORTHY, AGED 49 YEARS, CHOONDIKKAL PLANKALA PUTHENVEEDU, VELLARADA DESOM, VELLARADA VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLARADA VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.866/2009 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT NO.CPRS/8/08-09/830/ DOT/ML/08 DTD. 30/06/08. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE SHOTFIRER'S PERMIT DTD. 25/09/06. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENSE DTD. 18/03/08. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PANCHAYATH LICENSE DTD. 10/04/08. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 23/10/08. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE CORRESPONDENCE OF THE DIST COLLECTOR DTD. 10/10/08. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 26/10/08. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 27/06/07. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.866 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is operating a quarry where granite is extracted. According to him, he is operating the quarry on the strength of all necessary permits and licences. Exts.P1 to P4 are referred to in this context. Petitioner states that on 23.10.2008, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P5, prohibiting further mining in the quarry. Ext.P5 prohibitory order was issued on the basis of Ext.P6 communication dated 10.10.2008 issued by the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram to the 4th respondent, calling upon him to visit the quarry, stop further quarrying and make a report. It is on the basis of Ext.P6 that Ext.P5 was issued prohibiting further quarrying and therefore the writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P5 and Ext.P6. Wp(c).No.866/09 2 2. Notice was served on the respondents by special messenger and the Government Pleader today clarifies that, by Ext.P6 all that the second respondent intended was that the 4th respondent should visit the quarry area and make a report and that it was not intended that the 4th respondent should prohibit further quarrying. It is also stated that several complaints were received by the District Collector complaining about the quarrying by the petitioner and it was therefore that Ext.P6 was issued . 3. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several contentions regarding the validity of Exts.P5 and P6, now that the Government Pleader has clarified the position as above, I do not think that an adjudication on the merits of the contentions is necessary. Therefore I record the submission of the Government Pleader that the 2nd respondent did not intend that the 4th respondent should prohibit the activities of the petitioner and all that was intended was that the 4th respondent should inspect the premises and make a Wp(c).No.866/09 3 report to the 2nd respondent. In view of the submission made as above, it is directed that it will be open to the petitioner to resume the activities in the quarry irrespective of Exts.P5 and P6. However, this judgment shall not understood as restraining the 2nd respondent from exercising any power which he may have in law. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ Wp(c).No.866/09 4