IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 3466 of 2009(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.KRISHNAMOORTHY, ANJU NIVAS, MANAKKARA, SASTHAMKOTTA, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PUNALUR. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. LUKOSE, THEKKUVILA HOUSE, KANNIMELTHERY, PATTAZHY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. BABU, -D0-, -DO-. 5. PHILIP, -DO-. ADDL. 6. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. “ 7. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KRISHNA LEELA TOWERS, KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM. “ 8. PATTAZHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTAZHI, KOLLAM DISTRICT. W.P.(C)NO.3466/2009 2 (ADDL.R6 TO R8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 5.2.09 IN I.A.1821/09) ADV. SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN, SC, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD FOR ADDL.R7 SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR ADDL.R8 SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR FOR R3 TO 5 SR.G.P.SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN FOR R1, R2 & ADDL.R6. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)3466/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT GIVEN BY THE GEOLOGIST, KOLLAM TO THE PETITIONER DATED 23.7.2008. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER GIVEN BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER OF THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KOOLAM DATED 15.10.2008. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM DATED 22.11.2008. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE TAHSILDAR, PATHANAPURAM DATED 24.11.2008. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PATTAZHI DATED 24.11.2008. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 28.11.2008. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2008 IN W.P.(C) NO.36015/2008. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DATED 31.1.2009. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 31.1.2009. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENSE NO.E/SC/KL/22/21(E 10992) DATED 21.5.2007. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND MR.SUDHAKARAN PILLAI DATED 15.10.2008. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE DIRECTOR, MINING AND GEOLOGY DATED 8.11.2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 17.10.2008 OF THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5AND OTHERS TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. // TRUE COPY // TKS P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.3466 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated 19th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Raman, J . Petitioner has obtained quarrying permit for extracting granite building stones from the quarry in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1967. Ext.P1 is the permit issued dated 23.7.2009 as per which petitioner can extract granite building stones from the quarry situated in Survey No.173/4 of Pattazhi Village in Pathanapuram Taluk. Ext.P2 is the consent letter issued by the District Officer of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. Thus, only after obtaining Exts.P1 and P2 petitioner has started extraction of granite stones. While so, party respondents are alleged by committing obstruction to his work. This court directed to implead the RDO, Panchayat, Pollution Control Board and the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives Department and service is complete in respect of those persons. 2. Party respondents who entered appearance filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is stated that they are not causing any illegal obstruction, but, according to them, as a result of the quarrying operations conducted by the petitioner, serious damages are caused to the house buildings where they are residing and, therefore, they are staging dharnas in a peaceful W.P.(C)No.3466/2009 2 manner. But, according to the petitioner, they are illegally causing obstructions despite the fact that the petitioner has obtained all necessary licences for doing the quarrying operation. 3. We have heard learned Government Pleader, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.Chandrasekhar, counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 4. So long as Exts.P1 and P2 are in force and the quarrying operation is conducted using explosives by a licenced person, no objection can be raised against such work. Petitioner has produced Ext.P10 explosive licence and Ext.P11 agreement. The party respondents have got a case that the licence issued is not to the petitioner. But, being a question of fact and in the absence of further details, we cannot examine these contentions. In the factual situation, there will be a direction to the police officials to see that no obstruction is caused to the work done by the petitioner in accordance with Exts.P1 and P2 and in case he is using any explosives, it shall be done only by a licenced person who has been issued with a licence under the Explosives Act. Therefore, the police officials may verify the licence issued and ensure that explosives are used only by a licenced person in accordance with the provisions of the Explosives Act. If the party respondents are continuing dharnas peacefully, nobody can raise any objection to that. In case they have got a case that damages are W.P.(C)No.3466/2009 3 caused to their residential buildings, they are entitled to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMAN JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGE TKS