IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 9501 of 2011(K) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. P.K.PRAKASH, AGED 31, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, PADUKACHIKUNNEL HOUSE, VALAMBOOR, MAZHUVANNOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. K.K.SHINOJ, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.K.A.ALIYAR, CONVENER, PERUMANI JOINT ACTION COUNCIL, PERUMANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RENJITH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 20. 2. MAZHUVANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AIRAPURAM, AIRAPURAM P.O., PIN - 683541 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682020. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA RURAL, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 500. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTIMATTOM POLICE STATION, PATTIMATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - . svs ............2/-... ...2... WPC.NO.9501/2011 6. K.K.RAVI, KUZHUPILLY HOUSE, NORTH MAZHUVANNOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686689. 7. K.K.VARGHESE, KAKKADAN HOUSE, VILANG P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683561. 8. M.K.NADARAJAN, ASHARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MAMALA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682305. 9. K.K.SURENDRAN, KUZHUPPILLY HOUSE, NORTH MAZHUVANNOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686689. R1, R4 & R5 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.RAMESH R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR R6 TO 8 BY ADVS. SRI.RENNY AUGUSTINE SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 9501/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. P2: COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. P3: COPY OF THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR CONDUCTING A QUARRY UNIT. P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE PERUMANI JOINT ACTION COUNSEL DATED 28/02/2011 P7: COPY OF THE FIR 469/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.9501 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T Two residents of Perumani in Mazhuvannur Grama Panchayath are the petitioners. The writ petition is filed seeking a direction commanding respondents 1 to 3 to take necessary steps to stop the functioning of quarry units run by respondents 6 to 9 in R.S.No.430/12, 431/11-2-2, 429/3 and 430/1 respectively in Mazhuvannur Village. According to the petitioners, the quarry units belonging to respondents 6 to 9 are functioning without obtaining licence and against the statutory provisions of law. It is the case of the petitioners that the four stone quarry units owned by respondents 6 to 9 are causing unbearable atmospheric pollution, that respondents 6 to 9 are using high explosives for crushing stones, that the 7th respondent is misusing the licence obtained by him and is storing excessive quantity of explosives and therefore approached this Court for the reliefs mentioned in the writ petition. 2. Respondents 6 to 8 entered appearance and filed counter affidavit denying the averments in the writ petition. ::2:: W.P.(C).No.9501 Of 2011 Respondents 6 to 8 contended that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands, that they are residing far away from the quarry units and that they are conducting quarrying operations with valid permits or licenses. Respondents 6 to 8 also produced D & O Trade licence issued by the Panchayath, NOC from the Pollution Control Board, quarry permit issued by the Geologist authorising to operate quarry units, Short Firer's Certificate issued by the Controller of Explosives etc. Respondents 6 to 8 denied the allegation that they are misusing the licenses and averred that they are using licenses strictly in terms of the conditions. Respondents 6 to 8 prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 3. The 2nd respondent Panchayath filed a counter affidavit. Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: “3. Averments in paragraph 3 of the writ petition are not fully correct and hence denied. Respondents 6 to 8 have got valid licence to conduct quarrying operations. They have submitted application for licence with necessary documents such ::3:: W.P.(C).No.9501 Of 2011 as ownership/agreement to carry out quarrying operations, sketch of the area, licence to store explosives, licence of the blast man, permission from the department of Mining and Geology, no objection from the District Pollution Control Board etc. After verifying the aforesaid records and being satisfied that they are eligible to get licence to conduct quarrying operations within the limits of the Panchayath, they were given licence to conduct the quarry from this Grama Panchayath. The 9th respondent did not apply for any licence or the Panchayath had issued a licence to conduct quarry inside the Panchayath limits. 4. It is true that respondents 6 to 8 were not having quarrying licence when Ext.P1 application was received in the Panchayath. Subsequently, the 6th respondent had submitted his application for licence with requisite documents on 18.11.2010 and respondents 7 & 8 had submitted their application on 31.12.2010. While the above applications were under process, the election notification came and therefore the issue of licence was not taken up in the Panchayath Committee. After declaration of the election result, the Panchayath Committee having satisfied that respondents 6 to 8 have furnished all the requisite papers, took its decision to grant licence to those respondents on 21.5.2011”. ::4:: W.P.(C).No.9501 Of 2011 4. It is specifically stated in the counter affidavit that respondent 6 to 8 have got valid licence to conduct quarrying operations, that they have submitted application for licence with necessary documents to carry out quarrying operations, that after verifying the records produced and after being satisfied that they are eligible to get licence to conduct quarrying operations, they were given licence to conduct quarry. The counter affidavit also refers to the application submitted by respondents 6 to 8 based on which necessary licence were granted. In the light of the fact that the necessary licences were issued by the Panchayath after perusing the supporting document including the certificates and NOC from the statutory bodies, respondents 6 to 8 were given licene to conduct quarrying operations. Licence was issued after verifying the records and after being satisfied that they are eligible to get licence to conduct quarrying operations. 5. In these circumstances, I find that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. If respondents 6 to 8 are conducting quarrying operations in violation of the conditions set out in the licence issued by the authorities or if ::5:: W.P.(C).No.9501 Of 2011 quarrying operations are conducted without licence, it is open to the Panchayath and statutory bodies to take appropriate action. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents 6 to 9 have not obtained explosive licence under the Explosives Act for the conduct of using explosives in the quarrying unit. It is for the Panchayath to enquire into the said complaint and take necessary action, if respondents 6 to 9 are using explosives without licence. From the counter affidavit it is seen that the 9th respondent has no licence to conduct quarrying operations. The Panchayath shall ensure that the 9th respondent is not conducting quarrying operations. The writ petition is disposed of as above. The petitioners are at liberty to challenge the orders issued by the statutory authorities before the appropriate forums. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-