IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13173 of 2007(R) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. CHACKO MATHAI, AGED 50, S/O.MATHAI CHACKO, PADIKKAL KARROT, THOTTAKKAD P.O KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. P.V. THOMAS, S/O.THOMMAN VARGHESE, CHANDRATHIL VEEDU, THOTTAKKAD P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JOHNSON MANAYANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. P.T. ANDREWS, S/O.P.A. THOMAS, KOOVAKATTU CHIRAYIL VEEDU, VELLOOTHURUTHI, KUZHIMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 3. DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 4. MEENADAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MEENADOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, 43/350, POWER HOUSE EXTENSION ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH, COCHIN-18. R2, R3 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V. MANU. R1 BY ADV. MR.K.J.SAJI ISAAC, DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY. R4 BY ADV. MR.JOSE PALLATTUKARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 13173/2007-R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE GIVEN BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE SHORT FARERS PERMIT ISSUED TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER'S FAMILY MEMEBRS BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 25/07/2001. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 25/06/2005. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.438/2005. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 27/02/2007. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 28/05/2007. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 04/06/2005. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE MINE FOREMAN'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY DATED 20/11/1975. EXT.R1(c): COPY OF THE SHORT FIRER'S PERMIT OF THIS RESPONDENT DATED 01/01/2002. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).13173/2007 ....................... Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. The prayer sought in the writ petition is to direct the 3rd respondent to cancel Ext.P1 quarrying licence issued to the 1st respondent and to further direct respondents 2 to 5 to restrain the 1st respondent from continuing blasting and quarrying operations in the property mentioned in Ext.P1. 2. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent is conducting blasting and quarrying operations in the property mentioned in Ext.P1. It is stated that such blasting is conducted in violation of the conditions laid down in Exts.P1, P2 and P6 and without a licenced blaster, as a result of which, the extensive damage is caused to the properties of the 1st petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, it is argued that Ext.P1 licence is liable to be cancelled and that despite Ext.P4 complaint, there has not been any action forthcoming from the authorities and therefore, the writ petition is filed. W.P.(C).13173/2007 2 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent. In the counter affidavit thus filed, 3rd respondent has explained the background in which Ext.P1 was granted and also stated that various inspections have been held and that the 1st respondent has been instructed to strictly comply with the conditions of the licence. As far as the contention raised by the petitioner about the absence of qualified blaster is concerned, it is stated in the counter affidavit that there is a qualified blaster engaged by the 1st respondent. It is also stated that the 1st respondent is complying with the orders passed by the Civil Court in the judgment in O.S.438/2005 and therefore, there is no reason to cancel the license. 4. 1st respondent himself has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations. He has also produced Ext.R1(a) agreement with the blaster and Ext.R1(b) Mine Foreman's certificate of Competency of the blaster. However, subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, along with I.A.7520/07, petitioner has produced Ext.P9 communication dated 28.5.2007 issued by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives informing W.P.(C).13173/2007 3 him as follows. “Scrutiny of the records indicate that no licence has been granted by this Organization in form 22 of Explosive Rules 1983 to Sri.P.T.Andrews, Koovakattu Chirayil Veedu, Velloorthuruthi, Kuzhimattom P.O., Kottayam, the respondent in your petition for conducting blasting operation in the quarry mentioned by you in your complaint. As such the use of explosives by Sri.P.T.Andrews is illegal. As per rule 113 of Explosive Rules, 1983, no person shall possess, sell or use explosives except in accordance with the licence granted under these rules. As such you are advised to make representation to the District Collector and the Police department for illegal use of explosives by Sri.P.T.Andrews.” 5. Although this document was produced by the petitioner, no affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent contradicting the correctness of Ext.P9. If the factual position is as indicated in Ext.P9, blasting conducted by the 1st respondent cannot be allowed to continue. It is seen that as advised in Ext.P9, the W.P.(C).13173/2007 4 petitioner has filed Ext.P10 complaint before the District Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, and to the District Collector requesting for initiating action against the 1st respondent. In the affidavit he has averred that there has not been any response even to the complaint so made by him, a copy of which is Ext.P10. 6. Having regard to the contents of Ext.P9, I dispose of this writ petition directing the petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment along with the copy of Exts.P9 and P10 mentioned above, before the District Collector and the District Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, who on receipt thereof, shall conduct an enquiry into the matter and if it is found that the contents of Ext.P9 are correct, they shall forthwith take action for preventing further blasting by the 1st respondent. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs