IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 26118 of 2008(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.M.VELAYUDHAN, PRESIDENT , INTUC, MANIYOOR PANCHAYATH COMMITTE, CHERANDATHOOR,MANIYOOR P.O., VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. SECRETARY, MANIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MANOYOOR P.O., VADAKARA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANIYOOR. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. ATTUPURATH KHADEEJA, PERANDATHOOR P.O., PONMERI VIA, KOZHIKODE -673 541, 6. ATTUPURATH MOOSA HAJI, RESIDING DO. 7. SARA THORATHIL, MANIYOOR P.O., PAYYOLI VIA, KOZHIKODE 673 523. 8. VATTAKUNNI MOIDEEN, PERANDATHOOR P.O., PONMERI VIA, KOZHIKODE -673 541. R1, R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. MANU, R2 BY ADVS. MR.B.KRISHNAN, MR.R.PARTHASARATHY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.26118/2008-H: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE CENTRE FOR WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 05/01/2006. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. DTD. 18/04/07. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPORT SENT BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE R.1. DTD. 09/05/07. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE MINUTES. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C).16360/07 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DTD. 19/09/2007. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).36740/07 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ORDER OF DISTRICT COLLECTOR DTD. 23/06/08. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).26118/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P9, an order passed by the 1st respondent. 2. Petitioner claims to be the President of a Union representing the workers who were engaged in the sand collection at a kadavu by name 'Pulondi kadavu'. According to the petitioner, the sand collected from the said kadavu was used to be stored at two designated storage places and that owner of one of the storage sites objected and finally kadavu itself was ordered to be closed. That was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C).36740/07 and the writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment directing that it will be open to the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent with a proposal identifying the unobjectionable site and that if such a proposal is made, then the District Collector will hear the parties, conduct necessary inspection and pass fresh orders. W.P.(C).26118/08 2 3. It is stated that accordingly, petitioner identified the site, made a proposal to the District Collector on which parties were heard and Ext.P9 order was passed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P9 order is erroneous in as much as while the petitioner proposed to open the kadavu with a different collection centre, the closure of the kadavu itself is now ordered to be continued which is unwarranted and impermissible. 4. This Court is concerned with the validity of Ext.P9, an administrative order passed by the District Collector. Therefore, on the material produced before the District Collector, if the view taken by the District Collector is a possible and permissible view, there is no reason for this Court to sit in appeal over the reasoning in Ext.P9 and substitute its view. A reading of Ext.P9 shows that after the proposal was made, District Collector had entrusted the matter to a Committee under the chairmanship of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, which had submitted its W.P.(C).26118/08 3 report. It was stated in the report that the sand collected from the area show presence of sediments which indicated acute shortage of river sand in the area. It is also stated that the Centre for Water Resources Development and Management in its report dated 10.3.2008 did not include Pulondi kadavu and that therefore it was not advisable to open the kadavu in question. The Collector also found that the other area identified by the petitioner is inaccessible. Further, it is stated that the workers whom the petitioner claims to represent, are all working in the nearby kadavu. The District Collector has further indicated that if the 'Kadavu' is opened, there is possibility of disturbance of peace. 5. It is having regard to these factors that the District Collector declined to review the earlier order closing the kadavu. In my view, in the light of the facts duly adverted by the District Collector particularly that the workers to whom the petitioner represent are gainfully employed, I see no reason to conclude that Ext.P9 order is perverse or arbitrary warranting interference W.P.(C).26118/08 4 in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs