IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 30199 of 2007(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.J.JOHNY, S/O P.I.JOHN, MANAGING PARTNER, GREEN LAND TRAVELS, THEVARA ROAD, KOCHI-15. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, TAXATION, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT PF COMMISSIONER, (ENFORCEMENT) EMPLOYEE'S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANAISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICER, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, P.F. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,KMTWF BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2008, ALONG WITH PC NO. 30296 OF 2007 WPC NO. 30291 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.30199/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE IST RESPONDENT /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.37955/2007 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P2 is a permit that has been issued to the petitioner subject to certain conditions. The petitioner submits that when conducting blasting operations on the strength of Ext.P2, by issuing Ext.P4 he was ordered to stop further blasting. He had challenged Ext.P4 in a writ petition before this court in which Ext.P5 interim order was passed and the same was modified by Ext.R2(a). It is complained by the petitioner that again a stop memo has been issued by Ext.P6 and that is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. It would appear from the pleadings of the second respondent as also the instruction of the Government Pleader that, the main cause for issuing stop memo was the alleged violation of the conditions of Ext.P2 and in 2 particular condition No.4 there of. Needless to say that, since conditions are imposed in Ext.P2 these conditions shall be followed by the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents need permit the petitioner to continue the blasting only subject to compliance with the conditions in Ext.P2. Subject to compliance as above, I direct that the petitioner will be permitted to continue blasting. I make it clear that in case the petitioner has any difficulty to comply with any of the condition imposed, it is for him to move the appropriate authority and that authority shall consider the matter and take appropriate decision. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 3