IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 776 of 2011(S) ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.6023/2011 Dated 25/03/2011 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- GIRISHKUMAR, S/O.BALAN, "SOUPARNIKA", CHIRAMANANGAD VILLAGE, PUNNAYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATHS, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): IST RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAYASREE P.K. (OTHER PERSONAL DETAILS NOT KNOWN), REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR - 680001. BY SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- Cont. Case (C).No. 776 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. The complainant herein approached this Court in a public interest litigation, W.P(C).No.6023 of 2011, in which a Division Bench of this Court made the following observations: “......We, therefore, direct the R.D.O., Thrissur to issue notice to the land owners who have submitted applications for NOC/clearance and also to the petitioners in W.P(C).No.6722 of 2011, and conduct an inspection of the area with Geologist and decide which are the areas suitable for removal of soil for the purpose of filling up of land for construction of railway line, road and similar public works. Objections, if any are raised by the public should be rationally considered and unless there is some basis, it should be overruled. Wherever mining causes environmental degradation or dangers to neighboring properties, the R.D.O should not permit it. However, whatever is the level of mining permissible it is for him to permit it but by imposing conditions against digging beyond a level or digging near houses, roads or the like causing danger to public life. The R.D.O., in consultation with the Geologist and after COC(C).776/11 2 inspection of the properties of applicants and petitioner in W.P(C).No.6023 of 2011, is directed to issue appropriate orders without any delay granting permission and with or without conditions which he deems fit. The police authorities in the local areas will ensure that no obstruction is caused for mining soil from the land in terms of the permission granted by the RDO and if any obstruction is caused by anybody, action will be taken against them and the obstruction will be prevented at all costs. Since removal of soil and filling will be difficult during monsoon, the RDO is directed to take decision at the earliest, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.” 2. From the submission of the learned Government Pleader, we note subsequent to the judgment dated 25.3.2011, on 25.4.2011, the R.D.O inspected the place in question, submitted a report and issued orders directing the complainant herein to stop removal of sand from the land belonging to him. Subsequently, on the representation of the complainant that he was not heard before the orders of R.D.O came to be passed, a second inspection was done on 1.10.2011 in the presence of the complainant but orders have to be passed. We also note from the submission of the learned Government Pleader, norms for such consideration have come into existence and the second orders COC(C).776/11 3 would be made taking into consideration the modified norms dated 19.8.2011 and it would take about 2-3 weeks from today. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, we are of the opinion that the present proceedings could be dropped reserving liberty to the complainant to approach this Court seeking revival of the contempt proceedings, if no orders are passed within three weeks from today. However, we also make it clear that if the report of the RDO is not in favour of the complainant herein, he is at liberty to challenge the same. The Contempt of Court Case is closed. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs