IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 36574 of 2004(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ATHILAN IBRAHIM, S/O. MAMMU HAJI, AGRICULTURIST, ATHILAN HOUSE, THENGUMUNDA, P.O.PADINHARATHARA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SARVOTHAMAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. VAZHAPPILLY VARGHESE, PROPRIETOR, 'BABY BRICKS', VAZHAPPILLI HOUSE, THENGUMUNDA, PADINJARATHARA P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN 673 575. 2. PADINHARATHARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PADINHARATHARA P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. 4. GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, MEENANGADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WAYANAD DISTRICT. R1 BY MR.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. SMT.V.A.GANGUJA, MR.VIVEK VARGHESE, MRI.N.J.PRINCE, R2 BY ADV. MR.VARGHESE PREM, ADV. MR.M.A.SHAFIK, R3 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. MANU, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON 20/10/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.36574/2004-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1.SERIES: PHOTOGRAPH VIEW OF THE SITE WHERE THE R.1. IS CONDUCTING HIS CLAY BRICKS OPERATION. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.DOW/M1696/2003 DTD. 22/10/2003 OF THE R.4. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DTD. 23/02/2004 BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 12/03/2004 BEFORE THE R.3. EXT.P.4.A: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 19/11/2004 BEFORE THE R.3. FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED BY MADHYAMAM DAILY DT. 25/02/04. EXT.P.5.A: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.5. DTD. 12/03/04. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. 294/04 IN O.S. 60/04 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KALPETTA DTD. 11/03/04. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.36574 of 2004-D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner seeks orders in relation to alleged illegal activities in a paddy field. He states that the first respondent has a clay brick manufacturing unit and under the permit granted by the fourth respondent, in 2003, the first respondent continues with the activity even after the expiry of the permit period. According to the petitioner, this results in depriving the Varambatta river of proper flow. He points out that there are ecological and environmental imbalances created by the activities of the first respondent. 2.This writ petition is on file from 16.12.2004 with no interim order. WPC36574/2004 -: 2 :- 3.The fourth respondent Geologist has filed a counter affidavit sworn to on 25.6.2009. He states that the first respondent had three quarrying permits which are enlisted in the second paragraph of the counter affidavit and that those quarrying permits were valid up to 28.4.2005. It is stated that the first respondent quarried the brick clay after obtaining the panchayat licence and the quarrying permits were issued only after being satisfied with all conditions under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. It is also pleaded that on 5.1.2005, the then Geologist had visited the site and had opined that there is no ecological imbalance prevailing in the site. It is pleaded that the petitioner's residential house is about 200 metres away from the quarry site and is not adjacent to the quarry site. It is further pleaded that it cannot be considered that the land is a paddy field and there are plantain and tapioca cultivation near to the adjacent site. It is stated that the depth of the quarry is only 1 WPC36574/2004 -: 3 :- ½ to 2 metres and a small river is flowing at the northern side of the site from east to west. It is stated that the small depth of quarrying is in an “uplifted area” from the river bed and there is no quarrying of river sand from the river bank. The fourth respondent also, in tune with the petitioner's pleadings, pointed out that there is a civil case pending between the petitioner and the first respondent. 4.With the passage of time, the quarrying permit is no more in force. The ground realities have been stated by the Geologist in his counter affidavit. On facts, those pleadings are not controverted. The assumptions on the basis of which the petitioner criticised the action of the first respondent, do not lead to any justiciable issue, either in law or on facts. The ground reality remains that no further directions are called for, as of now, except to insist that the official respondents will ensure that the environment is appropriately maintained. WPC36574/2004 -: 4 :- In the result, while rejecting the reliefs sought for in the writ petition as unnecessary with the passage of time and on facts, it is directed that the fourth respondent will ensure that there is no damage to the environment in the locality. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/161009