IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 4694 of 2010(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ANSARI, SON OF A.R. MUHAMMED SALI, RESIDING AT ANZARI MANZIL, AKKAL.P.O., KARINGANNOOR VIA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JOHNSON GOMEZ, MR.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA). RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERLA, REPRESENTE BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 3. THE GEOLOGIST, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMNT, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 4. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, KRISHNA LEELA TOWERS, KADAPPAKKADA.P.O.,KOLLAM. 5. THE SECRETARY, VELINALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VELINALLOOR, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. M. ABRAHAM, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, NEERAYAKODU, EDAMULAKKAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V. MANU. R4 BY ADV. MR.M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS SC, POLLUTION C.BOARD R5 BY MR.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR.BINDU SREEKUMAR. R6 BY ADV. MR.THAMPAN THOMAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 4694/2010-J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH 15 OTHERS BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHER INHABITANTS OF THE LOCAITY. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED 11/01/2010 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE SIXTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE PREFERRED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FIFTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT DATED 25/01/2010 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE SIXTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LICENSE TO POSSESSES EXPLOSIVES FOR USE ISSUED BY THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, CHENNAI DATED 05/01/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R6(1): COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE VELINALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 29/01/2010. EXT.R6(2): COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT DATED 25/01/2010. EXT.R6(3): COPY OF THE SHORT FIRER LICENSE ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES DATED 27/11/2007. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.4694 OF 2010 (J) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he is aggrieved by Exts.P3, P4 and P5 orders passed by respondents 3, 4 and 5. Yet another grievance is regarding the alleged inaction of the 2nd respondent in considering Ext.P6 representation preferred by the petitioner. 2. Ext.P3 is a consent issued by the Pollution Control Board. Ext.P4 is an application made by the 6th respondent for licence to the Panchayat and Ext.P5 is the quarrying permit issued by the Geologist in favour of the 6th respondent. It is seen that during the pendency of the writ petition, on Ext.P4 application made, the Panchayat has issued Ext.R6(1) licence on 29.1.2010. There is no challenge against Ext.R6(1) licence granted and Ext.P4 being only an application made, there arise no question of quashing Ext.P4. In so far as Exts.P3 consent and P5 quarrying permit issued by the Geologist are concerned, petitioner did not address any arguments for invalidating the same. WPC.No.4694 /2010 :2 : 3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the 6th respondent does not possess a licence issued under the Explosive Act and Rules and therefore he cannot carry on blasting in the property owned by one Sri. Sherif and Smt.Sharmily as mentioned in Ext.P4 licence application. It is stated that the quarrying permit possessed by the 6th respondent does not entitle the 6th respondent to conduct blasting. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this court in Senso C. Scaria V. Director of Mines safety, Chennai Region (2009 (3) KLT 988) and in particular paragraph 4 of the said judgment. Answering this contention counsel for the 6th respondent submits that though he has not obtained licence for blasting in the premises in question he has made an application under Section 109 of the Explosive Act, seeking amendment of Ext.P7, a licence which he has obtained in respect of a different premises. It is also submitted that as at present since he does not possess license he has not started any blasting in the site in question. 4. From the submissions thus made by both sides, it is evident that the 6th respondent possess only Ext.R6(1) licence granted by the Panchayat. Therefore in the absence of any valid WPC.No.4694 /2010 :3 : licence under the Explosive Act & Rules, he cannot conduct any blasting and if he conducts any blasting the authorities are liable and are entitled to take action against the 6th respondent and it is so clarified. 5. The surviving grievance of the petitioner is regarding the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent in considering Ext.P6, a representation made by him against Ext.P5 quarrying permit issued by the Geologist. The learned Government Pleader submits that the representation has been received and the 2nd respondent has already initiated action thereon. 6. Having regard to the submission thus made by the Government Pleader it is directed that the 2nd respondent shall expedite the action on Ext.P6 with notice to the the affected parties. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.4694 /2010 :4 :