IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8643 of 2008(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.JYOTHIKUMAR, NARIYIDA CHARUVILA VEEDU, KUDAVATTOOR P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, ODANAVATTOM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SATHEESH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, ASHRAMAM, KOLLAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA. 4. SUBHADRA, D/O.BHARATHI, VISHNU VILASOM, ULAKODU MURI, KAREEPRA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. R1 TO 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 8643 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 13, 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition, the substantial relief that the petitioner seeks is a permission to use jack-hammer in quarrying operations. 2. It is seen that the 1st respondent in Ext.P8 has declined permission to the petitioner for using jack-hammer. Subsequently when the permit was renewed, there was no authorisation to use jack-hammer. This issue is the subject matter of OS No.219/2007 pending before the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara. In that suit the petitioner filed IA.No.2727/07 for permission to use jack-hammer and thereupon the court passed Ext.P9 order modifying its earlier order prohibiting its use and directing that a study be conducted into the feasibility of using jack-hammer. Even according to the petitioner, the study is now going on. While so, this writ petition has been filed praying for an order permitting the petitioner to use jack-hammer. 3. From the above it is obvious that the matter is pending WP(C) 8643/08 Page numbers consideration of the civil court. Pursuant to Ext.P9 order, the civil court has directed that a study be conducted into the feasibility of such use of jack-hammer. At this stage when, pursuant to Ext.P9 order, a study is being conducted, this court will not be justified in directing the authorities to permit the use of jack-hammer and thus nullify the order that has been passed by the civil court. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9 or he seeks a modification of Ext.P9, it is for the petitioner to approach the civil court itself than take resort to the writ jurisdiction of this court. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-