IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1597 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.11198/2011 Dated 07/04/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): / RESPONDENTS 3 TO 9 -------------- 1. P.C. SHOUKKATH, PADINJAREKKARA HOUSE, PAZHAYA LAKKIDI, AKALUR.P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 302. 2. P.C. ALI, PADINJAREKKARA HOUSE, PAZHAYA LAKKIDI ,AKALUR.P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN - 679 302. 3. P.C. SYED MUHAMMED, MANAGING PARTNER, CRESCENT GRANITE PRODUCTS, PAZHAYA LAKKIDI, AKALUR.P.O.,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 302. 4. ABDUL AZEEZ, PADINJAREKKARA HOUSE, CHERUMPALA, MANGALAM.P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 301. 5. IBRAHIM, PADINJAREKKARA HOUSE, CHERUMPALA, MANGALAM.P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 301. 6. P.K. SIDDIQUE PADINJAREKKARA HOUSE, CHERUMPALA, MANGALAM.P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 301. 7. CRESCENT GRANITE PRODUCTS, OLD LAKKIDI.P.O., AKALUR, VIA PERURU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, , PIN - 679 301, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER P.C.SYED MUHAMMED. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH W.A.NO.1597/2011 RESPONDENT(S): / PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1, 2 & 10 --------------- 1. VEERANKUTTY.K., AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. KUNJU MOIDU, KUNNAPPILLY HOUSE,PAZHAYALAKKIDI AKALUR.P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN-679302. 2. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, AGED 53, S/O. HASSANA- RUKUTTY, PADINJARAKKARA HOUSE,PAZHAYALAKKIDI, AGALUR.P.O.,OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST-679302 THROUGH P/A. HOLDER VEERAJ=NKUTTY.K.AGED 58,S/O. KUNJU MOIDU,AKALUR.P.O.,OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679302. 3. MUSHIN AGED 45, S/O.HASSANARUKUTTY, PADINJARKARA HOUSE, PAZHAYALAKKIDI,AGALUR.P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST-679302,THROUGH P/A. HOLDER VEERANKUTTY.K. AGED 58, S/O.KUNJU MOIDU, AKALUR.P.O.OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679302. 4. K.K.HAMSA, AGED 56, S/O.KUNJUMOIDU, KUNNAPPILLY HOUSE, PAZHAYALAKKIDI,AKALUR.P.O. OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST-679302. THROUGH P/A. HOLDER VEERANKUTTY.K., AGED 58, S/O. KUNJU MOIDU, AKALUR.P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679302. 5. LAKKIDI PEROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANGALAM.P.O., PIN-670301, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROLBOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 7. THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPALAM, PIN - 679 101. BY MR.P.K.IBRAHIM FOR R1 TO R4 MR.M.K.C.DAS FOR R6 MR.LIJU M.P. FOR R5 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag.CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. .................................................................... W.A. No.1597 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. This Writ Appeal is filed against the interim order issued by the learned Single Judge permitting party respondents to continue quarrying operation only if they have requisite licences and permits from competent authorities. 2. The appellants (party respondents in the WP(C)) cannot have any grievance against the interim order because they cannot carry on quarrying operations except in accordance with law, which requires permits and licences from the authorities concerned. However, appellants' grievance is that applications for licences and permits are in process and on account of pendency of the WP(C) those are not proceeded with by the respondents. We feel this contention is tenable because pendency of WP(C) should not stand in the way of the concerned authorities considering eligibility for quarrying. W.A.No.1597/2011 2 However, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 submitted that while considering the applications for licence or approval by respondents 5 to 7 or any other authority, respondents 1 to 4 being neighbours to the quarry should be heard. We feel this also is an acceptable contention. 3. This Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed modifying the impugned interim order of the learned Single Judge as follows:- The appellants can conduct quarrying operations only after getting approvals and clearances from the authorities constituted under various Statutes including Panchayat, Pollution Control Board and the authority under the Explosives Act. However, if approvals and clearances are not obtained by the appellants and their applications are pending, whether it be before the Panchayat or any other authority, the same should be considered and orders should be passed immediately. There will be a direction to respondents 5 & 6 to hear the appellants and also consider the objections of W.A.No.1597/2011 3 respondents 1 to 4 while considering the applications for approval or clearance. This Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg