IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 32990 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.P.ABDULLA, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.OF ALI HAJI, KODASSERY PARAMBA, WARD NO.10, OMASSERRY PANCHAYATH, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. OMASSERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OMASSERRY P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, RPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. ABUBACKER HAJI, PEEDIKAKANDY, P.O.MALAYAMMA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMITHA SUKUMAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 32990/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 32990 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner’s complaint in this writ petition is that the 3rd respondent is conducting quarrying operations in his property by blasting granite without licence from the appropriate authorities, which according to the petitioner is admitted in Ext.P1, which is a communication issued by the 1st respondent Panchayat to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the first respondent to ensure that without necessary licences from the first and second respondent no quarrying operation is carried out in the property situating in R.S. No.32/1 of Puthur amsom and Vennakode desom of the Kozhikode taluk and also to ensure that no damage or danger is caused to the houses situating nearby or to their residents. ii. to direct the 1st respondent that no quarrying operation is carried out in the property situating in R.S. No.32/1 of Puthur amsom and Vennakode desom of the Kozhikode without appropriate licence from it. iii. direct the second respondent to initiate action on Exhibit.P3 letter issued by the first respondent.” 2. The counsel for the Panchayat would submit that although in WPC :32990/08 -:2:- Ext.P1 it is admitted that the 3rd respondent has not obtained any licence from the Panchayat, it is not admitted therein that the 3rd respondent is conducting any quarrying operations. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent Geologist, wherein he would submit that the 3rd respondent operates the quarry with valid quarrying permit issued by the 2nd respondent. 3. Counsel for the petitioner points out that even assuming that the petitioner has obtained a quarrying permit, admittedly, as revealed by Ext.P1, the Panchayat has not issued any permit for quarrying to anybody within the Panchayat area. Since under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, a licence from the Panchayat is mandatory for operating a quarry, without such licence, the 3rd respondent cannot engage any quarrying. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. At the time of admission this Court had passed the following interim order on 10.04.08: “Notice on admission by speed post to the respondents. In the meanwhile, 1st respondent shall ensure that the 3rd respondent carries on any quarry in the property comprised in Sy. No.32/1 of of Puthur amsom and Vennakode desom in Kozhikode Taluk only if he has obtained requisite permission and licence in that behalf under the Explosives Act and Rules and WPC :32990/08 -:3:- the Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Copy of this order shall be produced before the 1st respondent along with the writ petition.” 5. The 3rd respondent has not chosen to file any counter affidavit in the matter and when the matter was taken up today, there is no appearance for the 3rd respondent also. That being so, the allegation that the 3rd respondent does not have a licence from the Panchayat, stands uncontroverted. Under law, without such a licence from the Panchayat, the 3rd respondent cannot operate the quarry. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to see that the 3rd respondent does not do any quarrying work in the property in question without appropriate licence/permit/consent etc. from all authorities concerned including licence from the Panchayat. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb