IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 29267 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P.MATHAI, S/O.POULOSE, KOTTANATTU, PERUMANI, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SRI.P.P.BIJU SRI.NITHIN JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU, PERUMBAVOOR. 4. THE VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR. 5. SIBI PETER, S/O.PATHORSE, MUTTAMTHOTTIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM. 6. JIJO JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, VADASSERY VEEDU, PAZHANGANAD, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM. 7. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY FOR R4 SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR FOR R5 & 6 SRI.RENNY AUGUSTINE FOR R5 & 6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 29267 of 2009 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE POLLUTED POND EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ANOTHER COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE REGISTERED POURA SAMITHI TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.9.2009 EXT.R5(a)- TRUE COPIES OF THE MINING PERMITS AND LICENCES ISSUED BY STATUTORY AUTHORITIES FOR RUNNING THE QUARRY REFERRED TO IN EXT.P4. EXT.R5(b)- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.30097 OF 2006 (G) DATED 29.11.2006 EXT.R5(c)- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN R.P.NO.1101 OF 2006 IN W.P.(C). 30097 OF 2006 DATED 1.1.07 EXT.R5(d)- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.33062 OF 2006 DATED 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 EXT.R5(e)- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.290/2006 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, RECEIVED BY RESPNDENTS 5 AND 6. EXT.R5(f)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.1239/09 DATED 30.9.09 OF VILLAGE OFFICER, ARACKAPADY IN REPLY TO EXT.P4 EXT.R5(g)- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DOE/4239/E2/09 DATED 5.10.09 OF GEOLOGIST PURSUANT TO EXT.P4. EXT.R5(h)- TRUE COPY OF THE FIELD REFIXING SKETCH PREPARED PURSUANT TO EXT.R5(g). EXT.R5(i)- TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.331/2009 DATED 9.3.2009 IN PERUMBAVOOR MUNSIFF COURT (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ....................... W.P.(C).29267/2009 ....................... Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides. 2. The petitioner, who claims to be residing on the western side of the lands where respondents 5 and 6 were conducting a granite quarry, has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 4 and 7 to close down the said quarry. The petitioner contends that respondents 5 and 6 have no valid licence to use explosives and have also violated the terms and conditions of the quarrying permit. Apart from the vague averment that respondents 5 and 6 have no valid licence to use explosives, the petitioner has not stated the details of the licences which respondents 5 and 6 do not possess. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the Assistant Geologist, Ernakulam, and the Tahsildar, Kunnathunad Taluk inspected the site of the quarry. They have filed Annexure-A1 report dated 31.10.2009 and Annexure-A2 report dated 2.11.2009 respectively. The only objection that the said officers have pointed out in the running of the quarry is that respondents 5 and 6 have conducted quarrying operations beyond the W.P.(C).29267/09 2 designated area. The said officers have not pointed out any act of violation of the conditions of permit by respondents 5 and 6. Annexure-A1 and A2 reports also indicate that respondents 5 and 6 had the necessary permits and licence. 3. It is evident from the pleadings that the permit issued to respondents 5 and 6 to run the quarry expired on 10.11.2009 and that they have applied for renewal of the permit. The pleadings also disclose that the area within which respondents 5 and 6 can conduct quarrying operations will also be demarcated before the permit is renewed. It is also evident from the pleadings that till 14.9.2009, the petitioner had not filed any complaint before any of the authorities. The only complaint filed by him before any of the authorities was the complaint dated 14.9.2009 filed before the Geologist, which is referred to in Ext.P4. Pursuant to the said complaint, the Geologist conducted an inspection but did not find any objectionable conduct other than the fact that respondents 5 and 6 have conducted quarrying operations beyond the designated area. In such circumstances, I am persuaded to agree with the leaned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 that W.P.(C).29267/09 3 the petitioner is evidently acting at the instance of others. I find no grounds to grant the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with the observation that respondents 1 to 4 shall ensure that respondents 5 and 6 conduct quarrying operations only if they possess valid licences/permits and in the designated area. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs