IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 14280 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ALEXANDER VARKEY,AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.C.VARKEY,PARUPPALLIL HOUSE,RAMANCHIRA, R.S.P.O.,MUTHOOR MURI,THIRUVALLA VILLAGE. 2. MATHEW ABRAHAM,AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.LATE C.K.ABRAHAM,VALUCHIRAYIL HOUSE, MULIYANNOORKKARA MURI,KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE. 3. JACOB VARGHESE,AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.K.V.VARGHESE,KALKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MULIYANNOORKKARA MURI,KUTTAPPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.CHERIAN GEE VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,THIRUVALLA. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA. 6. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 7. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER,PATHANAMTHITTA 8. THE GEOLOGIST,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, ADOOR P.O. 9. K.P.KHANI,AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.LATE PAREED ROWTHER,KALARICKAL VADAKKETHIL, RAMANCHIRA, R.S.P.O., THIRUVALLA ADV.SHRI M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS FOR R2 AND R3 SHRI S.SUBASH CHAND FOR R4 SRI.SATHISH NINAN FOR R9 SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW FOR R9 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.K.R.DEEPA FOR R1, R5 TO R8 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.14280/2010-H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to the Municipality to take effective and appropriate action in accordance with law to see that the ninth respondent shall not make any development, quarrying or construction in violation of Kerala Municipality Act, Kerala Municipality Building Rules and Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The petitioners have filed various representations before the Municipality in the matter also. 2. The apprehension raised by the petitioners in the writ petition is that the ninth respondent is trying to establish a cement godown in the property having an extent of 55 cents in Survey No.513/3. 3. The learned counsel for the Municipality and the learned counsel appearing for the ninth respondent submitted that no such application has been filed by the ninth respondent. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the ninth respondent that the property has already been transferred and the allegation raised against the ninth respondent is not correct. In that view of the matter, as there is no application submitted by the ninth respondent before the Municipality, the apprehension raised W.P.(C). No.14280/2010 -:2:- by the petitioners in this writ petition cannot be said to be correct. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the Municipality that no application filed by the ninth respondent is pending today, the writ petition is closed. This will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to file objection before the Municipality if any other person who owns the said property moves the Municipality for any such permit/licence. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms