IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2010 / 21ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 31719 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HISHAM K.A., AGED 27 YEARS,S/O.K.A.MAMMOOTTY, KADAYANGAL HOUSE,THONDERNAD P.O., WAYANAD-670731. BY ADVS. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.M.R.VIBIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, SECRETARIATE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,WAYANAD. 3. THE RDO,MANANTHAVADI,WAYANAD. 4. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,WAYANAD. 5. TAHSILDAR,MANANTHAVADI,WAYANAD. 6. VILLAGE OFFICER,THONDERNAD,WAYANAD. 7. THONDERNADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THONDERNADU P.O.,KOROM,WAYANAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 8. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,WAYANAD. 9. THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,WAYANAD. 10. THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,KOOMBUKKAL HOUSE, MAKKIYAD P.O.,WAYANAD. WP(C).No. 31719 of 2009(H) 11. MYMOONA NAZAR,W/O.LATE NAZAR, VAZHAYIL HOUSE,THONDERNAD P.O., WAYANAD-670731. R1 TO R6 & R8 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF R7 BY ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 31719 of 2009(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE TITLE DEED IN NEXUS WITH PROPERTY SITUATED IN SY.NO.867/IB OF THONDARNADU VILLAGE, WHICH IS HAVING AN EXTENT OF 90 CENTS. P2. COPY OF THE TITLE DEED IN NEXUS WITH THE PROPERTY SITUATED IN SY.NO.867/IB OF THONDARNADU VILLAGE, WHICH IS HAVING AN EXTENT OF 3 ACRES 60 CENTS. P3. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P5. COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P6. COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P7 COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT. P8. COPY OF THE REPLY FURNISHED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT. P9. COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 02.01.2009 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT. P10. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P11. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2009. P12. COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING DESTRUCTION OF HOUSE OF THE PETITIONER. P13. COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE EXISTENCE OF A NATURAL STREAM. P14. COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF QUARRY OPERATION DONE BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT. P15. COPY OF NEWS PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 07.10.2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/ S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 31719 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is residing near to a quarry operated by the 10th respondent. The petitioner filed complaints before the Revenue Divisional Officer complaining that the 10th respondent is conducting an unauthorized quarry, without obtaining appropriate licenses and permits as required under law. Pursuant thereto the Revenue Divisional Officer passed Ext.P10 order, by which he directed the 10th respondent to stop the operation of the quarry. The 10th respondent filed an appeal before the District Collector, who by Ext.P11 set aside Ext.P10 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer on the mere ground that the functioning of the quarry does not in any way affect the petitioner in so far as he is residing beyond 50 mtrs. from the quarry. Petitioner submits that the District Collector himself has found that the quarry is being operated without a W.P.(C)No. 31719 of 2009 -2- panchayath license and an explosives license. After having found that the 10th respondent himself has admitted that he does not have a Panchayat license and explosives license, the District Collector could not have interfered with the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, is the contention of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: (i) Call for the record leading to the issuance of Exhibit P11 order passed by the 2nd respondent and issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit P11 as illegal. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the official respondents to prohibit the 10th respondent from the illegal quarrying operation in the area in dispute, in consideration of the sad plight of the petitioner. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents No.2 to re-consider Exhibit P11 order and pass fresh order, by affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or his authorized representative, without any further delay. (iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to impose fine on the wrong doers and direct them to pay damages for environmental pollution committed in the area in dispute by applying Polluter Pays principle and also to pay damages to those who have suffered loss on account of the act of those wrong doers. 2. Despite service of notice, the 10th respondent has not chosen to file any counter affidavit in this writ petition. W.P.(C)No. 31719 of 2009 -3- As such, the averments in the writ petition stands uncontroverted. The other respondents have also not chosen to file any counter affidavit. Consequently all the averments in the writ petition stands uncontroverted. 3. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner. I have gone through Ext.P11 order of the District Collector. I am surprised that a District Collector in this State has the temerity to pass such an order after finding that the 10th respondent himself has admitted that the quarry is being operated without a panchayth license and explosive license, when it is the bounden duty of the District Collector to prohibit such illegal quarrying operations when brought to his notice. Instead he has chosen to permit an illegal quarry on the mere ground that the quarry does not affect the petitioner in this writ petition. The Collector's action has to be condemned in no uncertain terms. When the District Collector is satisfied that the quarry is being operated without all appropriate licenses particularly an explosives license, he should have W.P.(C)No. 31719 of 2009 -4- taken special care to stop the quarrying. Instead he has interfered with the direction of the Revenue Divisional Officer to stop the quarry. The District Collector would do well not to repeat such action at least in future. In view of the above findings, I have no hesitation to hold that Ext.P11 is not sustainable and accordingly Ext.P11 is quashed and Ext.P10 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is restored. 4. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed as above. I was inclined to direct the District Collector to pay costs personally for his unbecoming action, but exercising restraint I refrain from doing so. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the District Collector who has passed the order, wherever he is presently working, for information and future guidance. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/