IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 19487 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.STEPHENSON, KODALIPPARA VEEDU, KODALIPPARA, PULIYARAKKONAM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-6. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.P.K.NIJOY SMT.NISHA G.THARAMAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILAPPIL VILLAGE, PEYAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 573. 4. THE SECRETARY, VILAPPIL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 573. 5. GEORGE, WELCORN HOLLOW BRICKS, MYLAMOOD, PULIYARAKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 573. ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) FOR R5 SRI.K.B.PRADEEP FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.RAMESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.19487/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.3.2010 SUBMITTED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF DETAILED REPRESENTATION DATED 18.1.2010 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 7.4.2010 OF THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 5.5.2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.19487 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The main relief prayed for in this writ petition is for a direction to the District Collector, Trivandrum to implement Ext.P4 order issued by the District Magistrate, Trivandrum on 5.5.2010 under section 133(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By the said order the District Magistrate, Trivandrum directed the 5th respondent herein to stop running a crusher unit and a quarry and also called upon him to show cause why the said order should not be made absolute. 2. Heard Smt.K.P.Santhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.K.Ramesh, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, Sri.K.B.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and Sri.V.Rajendran Perumbavoor, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent. Sri.K.B.Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits that the Panchayat has taken a decision to proceed against the fifth respondent and to prevent the functioning of the quarry/crusher unit. The learned counsel submits that in such circumstances the Panchayat may be permitted to W.P(C).No.19487 of 2010 -:2:- proceed with the decision already taken by it. 3. A reading of Ext.P4 indicates that it is a conditional order issued under section 133(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and that the 5th respondent, who is bound by the order, has the right and liberty to have the order varied and modified. In such circumstances I am of the opinion that the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The petitioner can at best only seek a direction to the District Magistrate, Trivandrum to finalise the proceedings initiated by him under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after affording him and the 5th respondent a reasonable opportunity of being heard. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the District Magistrate, Trivandrum to finalise the proceedings initiated by him and to take a final decision in the matter within two months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before him or the District Magistrate otherwise receives a certified copy of this judgment. The contentions of the petitioner and the 5th respondent on the merits are kept open. Having regard to the fact that the decision taken by the Panchayat is not under challenge in W.P(C).No.19487 of 2010 -:3:- this writ petition it is clarified that nothing contained in this judgment will stand in the way of the local authority from proceeding against the 5th respondent in accordance with law. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.19487 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 30th August, 2010