IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 31476 of 2007(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. SEETHA.C, D/O.DR.V.CHANDRAN, MITHILA, NANMUNDA P.O., KOZHIKODE. 2. SAFNA N., D/O.N.KHADER, NAYADATH HOUSE, KOTTAMPARAMBA P.O. 3. SRUTHI RAJ, D/O.SUDHARMA RAJU, RAJA NIVAS, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM-3. 4. APARNA M., D/O.M.JAYARAJAN, ANJALI, CHAKKYATH MUKKI, P.O.TEMPLE GATE, THALASSERY. 5. MARY LIBA BARRID, D/O.C.J.BARRID, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, 14/543, WEST CHULLICKAL, COCHIN. 6. JAYALAKSHMY T.R., D/O.T.R.RAMACHANDRAN, SRK VILAS, PULIYANNOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. 7. P.ARCHANA, D/O.P.SATHIAN, LAKSHMI NIVAS, ARIYALLUR P.O., PARAPPANAGADI, MALAPPURAM. 8. PRIYA T.P., D/O.RADHAMANI T.P., LOHITHAM NADUVIL P.O., KANNUR. 9. DEEPA K., D/O.K.KUNHIRAMAN NAMBIAR, DEEPAM, KODAKKAD P.O., KASARGOD DT. 10. DIVYA A., D/O.A.GOPALAN, CHITHIRA, CHUZHALI P.O., KANNUR. 11. DIVYA C., BALAN, D/O.C.K.GEETHA, SREELAYA, 7TH MILE, KUTTIKKOL P.O., TALIPARAMBA. Kss ..2/- ...2.... WPC.NO.31476/2007 V 12. SOUMYA E.A, D/O.MADHAVAN NAMBOODIRI E.A. E.A.NIVAS, NR.RAJARAJESWARA TEMPLE, KANNUR. 13. ANJALI DEVI, NANDANAM, MANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE. 14. SREEBHA A., SREEPURAM, VENGAD P.O.,] ANJARAKANDY VIA. KANNUR. 15. SHAFNA V., SHAFNA HOUSE, CHELLANNUR P.O. KOZHIKODE. 16. NAVEEN C.R., S/O.P.CHANDAR, RECHANA, PUTHUPALLIKUNNAM, CHARUMOOD P.O. PIN 690 505. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL COURSES IN KERALA, OLD HIGH COURT BUILDLING, ERNAKULAM , KOCHI-31. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, PARASSINIKKADAVU AYURVEDA MEDICAL COLLEGE, PARASSINIKADAVU, KANNUR 670 563. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.31476/2007 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 12/09/2003 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 14/06/2006 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 2/08/2006 IN WP(C) NO.17185/06. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DTD. 13/09/2007 IN W.A.NO.2225/07. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 15/10/206 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMMITTEE (WITHOUT ANNEXURES). EXT.P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM STAY DTD. 15/10/2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMMITTEE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.37955/2007 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P2 is a permit that has been issued to the petitioner subject to certain conditions. The petitioner submits that when conducting blasting operations on the strength of Ext.P2, by issuing Ext.P4 he was ordered to stop further blasting. He had challenged Ext.P4 in a writ petition before this court in which Ext.P5 interim order was passed and the same was modified by Ext.R2(a). It is complained by the petitioner that again a stop memo has been issued by Ext.P6 and that is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. It would appear from the pleadings of the second respondent as also the instruction of the Government Pleader that, the main cause for issuing stop memo was the alleged violation of the conditions of Ext.P2 and in 2 particular condition No.4 there of. Needless to say that, since conditions are imposed in Ext.P2 these conditions shall be followed by the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents need permit the petitioner to continue the blasting only subject to compliance with the conditions in Ext.P2. Subject to compliance as above, I direct that the petitioner will be permitted to continue blasting. I make it clear that in case the petitioner has any difficulty to comply with any of the condition imposed, it is for him to move the appropriate authority and that authority shall consider the matter and take appropriate decision. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 3