IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 30168 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- BABY THOMAS K, M/S E.E.S. INDUSTRIES, PUNNAKKAD P.O., KOZHENCHERY, RESIDING AT KANJIRAMNIKKUNNATHIL, THEKKEMALA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. 2. THE SPUERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOZHENCHERY. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARANMULA POLICE STATION, 5. MADHUKUMAR, PANAPARAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, THEKKEMALA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30168 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner started an agro processing industrial unit, for the production of vegetable oil through mechanical and solvent extractions, stated to be a Renewable Energy Project. He proceeded with the construction of a tank with 30 lakhs litres capacity in the land situated within the Mallapuzhassery Grama Panchayat. 2. According to the petitioner, the tank is constructed for the purpose of storing water and preparing biomass, biogas and solar electricity for the project. He refers to Exts.P1 and P2 permits issued by the Tahsildar enabling him to remove the rubbles. A provisional registration, as evidenced by Ext.P3, was granted for the Unit by the Assistant District Industries Officer, Pathanamthitta. Since a limited quantity of explosive is necessary, the petitioner applied for and obtained permission in this regard from the Joint Controller of Explosives, as evidenced by Ext.P4. He availed a financial facility from Punjab National Bank and State Bank of India. He obtained an electric connection and he started W.P.(C).No.30168 of 2008 :: 2 :: the work of the project. He is met with Ext.P7 dated 2.9.2008 issued by the 4th respondent, requiring him to stop the work. Ext.P7 is challenged in this writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 4th respondent. Paragraph 6 reads as follows: “It is submitted that the stop memo was issued purely as a temporary measure in order to avoid further casualties. On enquiry this respondent was convinced about the following matters: a. The petitioner is conducting quarrying not at a place where he proposes to install the project. b. The petitioner is not having the explosive licence and blasting licence as required under the law in order to conduct quarrying. c. He is conducting quarrying as per an agreement executed between another person having blasting licence alone. d. No explosive licence to possess and to use has been produced either by the petitioner or the other person. e. The petitioner has not taken any precautions and safeguards which he ought to have taken while conducting quarrying.” 4. Counsel for the petitioner refutes the stand taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer. He W.P.(C).No.30168 of 2008 :: 3 :: further submits that, at any rate, it is not open to the 4th respondent to issue a stop memo. He has no jurisdiction. 5. I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I would have normally interfered with Ext.P7. But, it is necessary to bear in mind that the activity being carried on by the petitioner requires user of explosives till the construction is completed or at least for a stage. 6. It would be appropriate that a higher official considers whether the petitioner is armed with the requisite licence and permission not only to enable him to remove the rubbles from the property, but also for the user of explosives for the construction. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pathanamthitta, with a representation pointing out these aspects and also challenging the correctness of Ext.P7. The said Revenue Divisional Officer shall conduct an expeditious enquiry on the said representation and after verifying whether the petitioner has W.P.(C).No.30168 of 2008 :: 4 :: all permits, as are required, to enable him to continue with the construction of the project, pass orders on such representation. If it is found that the petitioner has the requisite permission, in law, then the Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass an order permitting the petitioner to continue with the construction of the project. If any other licence or permission is required, the petitioner shall be given liberty to pursue the matter, before proceeding with the construction of the project. The Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass orders within three weeks from the date on which a representation, as aforementioned, is submitted before him. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge