IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 17574 of 2007(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.VENUGOPALAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. SANKARANASHAN, MADATHIL VEEDU, KADATHOOR P.O., THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, (LOCAL ADMINISTRATION), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 5. BABU, S/O. VASUDEVAN, POKKATTU VADAKKATHIL, KADATHOOR P.O., THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 6. BEENA, D/O. VASUDEVAN, POKKATTU VADAKKATHIL, KADATHOOR P.O., THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. ADV. SRI. K.SIJU FOR R.5,6 SRI.PRATHEESH.P FOR R.5,6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 17574/07. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.24.5.07 TO R3. P2. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.26.5.07 TO R3. P3. COPY OF THE -DO- DTD.31.5.07. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.17574 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner filed this writ petition aggrieved by the alleged action of respondents 5 and 6 in removing/excavating earth from the property adjacent to that of the petitioner, which, according to the petitioner, would cause fall in ground water level and environmental imbalances. On 19.6.2007, I passed the following interim order. “Learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 submits that they have already stopped removal of soil which is the subject matter of this writ petition. Respondents 2 to 4 shall ensure that respondents 5 and 6 comply with the said undertaking. Post after two weeks.” Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the interim order, there was no further removal of soil and, therefore, the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the interim order. Learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 submits that now respondents 5 and 6 are not removing earth from the property in question and they have no further intention to do so also. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2