IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9111 of 2007(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.RAJAN, VADAKKEMURUPPEL, INCHAPPARA, KOODAL. BY ADV. MR.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. POLLUTION CONTORL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE MEMBER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. TAHSILDAR,PATHANAMTHITTA. 6. RETNAMMA.K., W/O.SURESH BABU, POURNAMI, ATHIRUMKAL P.O., KODAL VILLAGE. ADV. MR.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL FOR R.5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.TEKCHAND MR.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS, STANDING COUNSEL FOR PCB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 9111 of 2007(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: PHOTOGRAPH EXT.P2: PHOTOGRAPH. EXT.P3: PHOTOGRAPH. EXT.P4: PLAINT, O.S.NO.386/2006 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, ADOOR BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 9.11.2006. EXT.P5: LETTER DATED 7.2.2007. EXT.P6: PETITION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE PRESIDENT OF INDIA. EXT.P7: PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE TEMPLE. EXT.P8: PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE TEMPLE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R6(a): LEASE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT'S HUSBAND WITH NAKULAN AND ANIL KUMAR. EXT.R6(b): PERMIT ISSUED BY R3 IN FAVOUR OF CONTRACTORS. EXT.R6(c): BLASTING LICENCE WITH AGREEMENT. EXT.R4(a): REPORT FILED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER DATED 23.07.2007. .... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9111 of 2007 - I --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner approached this Court mainly seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 5 to pass orders stopping the quarrying operations in the concerned area located in 'Kalanjoor Panchayath' and also to direct them to take action against the 6th respondent and others who are stated as unauthorisedly quarrying the rock and for such other reliefs. 2. The 4th respondent-Pollution Control Board as well as the 6th respondent (party respondent) have filed separate counter affidavits. It has been pointed out by the said respondents that the quarrying operation pursued by the 6th respondent is in 'Koodal' village which is far away from the Kalanjoor Panchayath -where the petitioner is residing. Apparently inconsistent pleadings and prayers have been incorporated in the writ petition. While seeking to take action against the 6th respondent and others who are admittedly not residing or pursuing any quarrying operation in the 'Kalanjoor Panchayath' (where the W.P.(C).No.9111 of 2007 - I 2 petitioner is residing), the “other persons” as referred to in prayer No.1 have not been impleaded in the writ petition. 3. Prayer No.2 incorporated in the writ petition is for providing adequate measures to protect the “Muruga Temple” by preventing any quarrying/blasting activity within a radius of 250 meters and by providing protective walls on the side of the road leading to the temple. Referring to the facts and figures including the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent-Pollution Control Board and also the photographs produced by the petitioner, this Court, as per interim order dated 16.8.2007 observed that it was not possible to hold the said construction as a temple; that the petitioner was not residing anywhere near the property in question; that there was no complaint from the near vicinity (according to the report filed by the Pollution Control Board) and further that the writ petition was filed even without impleading the licensees as revealed from Exts.R1(b) and R1(c); which made this Court to decline granting of any interim relief. No reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner and the writ petition has not been amended in any manner. W.P.(C).No.9111 of 2007 - I 3 In the above circumstances, no circumstances have been brought out warranting interference by this Court and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. bkn/-