IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23824 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PAULSON P. VARKEY, S/O.P.P.VARKEY,AGED 50 YEARS, PYNADATHU(KUTTIKATTIL) HOUSE, NAYATHODU P.O.,ANGAMALI. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.MANU SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM COLLECTORATE, KAKKANADU,KOCHI-30. 3. REVENUE DIVISIIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI 682 001. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYAMPUZHA VILLAGE OFFICE, AYYAMPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM 683581. 5. P.K.BAIJU, PERUMATTOM,THATTUPARA,AMALAPURAM P.O., AYYAMPUZHA P.O.,ERNAKULAM 683581. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADEKEL ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR FOR R5 SMT.PREEJA. P.VIJAYAN FOR R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23824 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.246/10-11/MM/GS/CRPS/DOE/164/E211 DATED 27.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST IN RESPECT OF 0.4690 HECTARES IN SURVEY NO.247/102 AND 247/1 AND VALID UPTO 26.1.2012. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.294/10-11/MM/GS/CRP/DOE/486/E2/11 DATED 16.3.2011 IN RESPECT OF SURVEY NUMBER 247/11-2,247/11- 3 AND VALID UPTO 15.3.2012. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE REGARDING THE POSSESSION FOR USE OF EXPLOSIVES FROM MAGAZINE AT SURVEY NUMBERS 247/11/2 OF AYYAMPUZHA VILLAGE ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES,ERNAKULAM. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE THE QUARRY ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,DATED 4.10.2010 AND VALID UPTO 31.12.2012. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM ] AYYAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT FIRES CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE SAID P.R.SOMANATHAN EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.6.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER DATED 12.8.2011 EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.8.2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS DIRECTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND FORWARDED TO THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN MATHROOBHOOMI DAILY DATED 13.8.2011. RESPONDANTS'S EXHIBITS NIL ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 23824 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. Petitioner challenges Ext.P9, a prohibitory order issued by the 4th respondent under the instructions of the 3rd respondent prohibiting the petitioner from conducting the blasting operations in the quarry operated by him on the strength of Exts.P1 to P6. 2. According to the petitioner raising several allegations respondents 5 and 6 filed Ext.P10 complaint before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent thereupon issued Ext.P7 notice to the petitioner and 5th respondent. Parties were heard on 26.7.2011 and Ext.P8 prohibitory order was passed, directing the petitioner to stop blasting activity on the vicinity of the property and house of 5th W.P.(C) No. 23824 OF 2011 :2 : respondent until further orders. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is while he was thus continuing blasting complying with Ext.P8, without any notice or hearing him, on the directions of the 3rd respondent, Ext.P9 prohibitory order was issued, prohibiting all activities in the quarry. It is in this back ground the writ petition is filed. 2. From the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and also of the learned Government Pleader and the counsel for the 5th respondent it is obvious that Ext.P8 order was passed after hearing the parties. When such an order is passed considering the contentions raised by both the sides, if the said order is to be varied, such variation ought to be done only after issuing notice to the parties concerned and after taking note of the contentions of the respective parties. Since such a procedure has not been complied with by the RDO, W.P.(C) No. 23824 OF 2011 :3 : I am inclined to think that Ext.P9 order is vitiated. In that view of the matter I direct that it will be open to the petitioner and the 5th respondent to appear before the 3rd respondent at 11 O'clock on 12.9.2011 and within 3 days thereafter, the 3rd respondent should hear the parties and pass fresh orders in the matter. 3. It is made clear that while orders are passed, the 3rd respondent shall deal with the contentions of the parties and give reasons for imposing any restrictions on the blasting activity. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge