IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 31877 of 2004(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.P. OUSEPH, MALIACKAL HOUSE, NEAR GOVT.L.P. SCHOOL, MAMBRA, KARUKUTTY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.S.SAJU SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN(SR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.V. THOMAS, PULLAN HOUSE, MAMBRA, KARUKUTTY P.O. 2. MARY THOMAS, W/O. P.V. THOMAS, PULLAN HOUSE, MAMBRA, KARUKUTTY P.O. 3. P.J. POULOSE, PARAMBI HOUSE, KARUKUTTY P.O. 4. PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARAKKADAVU, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI. 6. GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM. 7. DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES POWER HOUSE EXTENSION ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. 8. KERALA STATE POLLUTINO CONTROL BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. * ADDITIONAL R9:- ADDITIOANL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 28.7.05 IN I.A. 4109/05) R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU R3 BY SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY R4 BY SRI.JOHNSON ABRAHAM R7 BY ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL MR. T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN R8 BY SC. . MR. CHANDRAMOHANDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 31877 of 2004(T) APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ---------------------------------- P1:- DT.5.9.04. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.5, COMPLAINING OF THE INDISCRIMINATE AND ILLEGAL QUARRYING CARRIED ON BY RESPONDENT. P2:- DT.30.9.04. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.6, COMPLAINING OF THE INDISCRIMINATE AND ILLEGAL QUAARYING CARRIED ON BY RESPONDENT NO.1 P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT.24.1.05 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE P3:- TRUE COPY SETTLEMENT DEED DT.28.4.07 TRANSFERRED TO PETITIONER' S SONS JACOB RESPPONDENT'S EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- R1(a):- TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWED LICENSE DT.8.9.04 VALID UPTO 7.1.05 R1(b):- TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT-FIRER'S PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.2.9.02 R1(c):- TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT-FIRER'S PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.2.9.02 R1(d):- TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.KL-997/E VALID UPTO 31.3.05 R1E:- TRUE COPY OF QUARRYING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST ON 15.3.05 WIDE NO.515/04-05/MM/GS/QP/DOE/509/E2/05 COMMISSIONER'S EXHIBITS ---------------------------------------- C1:- TRUE COPIES OF THE NOTICE DT.30.11.05 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER TO THE TALUK SURVEYOR, ALUVA AND THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IN RESPECT OF RECEIPT THEREOF C2:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.5.12.05 WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THEREON IN RESPECT OF SERVICE OF THE SAME ON THE PARTIES TO THE WRIT PETITION. C3:- TRUE COPY OF THE WORK MEMO DT.2.12.05 SUBMITTED TO THE ADVOCATE- COMMISSIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. C4:- TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH DRAWN BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR, ALUVA C5:- TRUE COPY OF PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT DT.23.7.96 HANDED OVER TO THE ADVOCATE-COMMISSINER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.31877 Of 2004 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JANUARY, 2011 J U D G M E N T The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the conduct of a quarry allegedly near his residential house, violating the relevant rules in the matter. 2. Various directions have been issued by this Court during the pendency of the Writ Petition and it is pointed out that the quarry had stopped functioning in the light of the interim orders passed. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board and the learned counsel for the Panchayat. The learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board submitted that there is no consent for operating the quarry by the respondents concerned. The learned counsel for the Panchayat also submitted that the Panchayat has not issued any licence. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any doubt that respondents 1 to 3 cannot operate the quarry. 4. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 then submitted that there are unobjectionable parts in the property W.P.(C)No.31877/04 -2- where quarrying can be done. It is a matter which the said respondents can agitate before the licensing authorities concerned and I am not expressing anything on the merits of it. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn True copy P.A. to Judge