IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 35717 of 2007(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.JANATHAKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNA PANICKER, SARASA BHAVAN, KARIPPUMMOOLA, PAMAMKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, PALLICHAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VEDIVACHANCOIL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEMOM CIRCLE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. GOPALAKRISHNAN, MALAVILA VEEDU, EDAKKODU, PALLICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. PUSHPALATHA, W/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN, MALAVILA VEEDU, EDAKKODU, PALLICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A FOR R4 SRI.S.M.PREM FOR R6,7 G.P. SHRI.DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1.7.2009, THE COURT ON 01/07/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 35717/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DTD.17.3.2007 IN I.A.NO.1597/2007 IN OS.NO.204/2007 OF II ADDL. MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.23.7.2007 OF R3. P3. COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.23.4.2007 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER. P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.14.3.2007 BY R4. P5. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.20.9.2007 BEFORE R2. RESPONDENT(S)'EXHIBITS R6A. COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN O.S.NO.204/2007 OF II ADDL. MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. “B. COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.5.11.97 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.35717 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that despite Ext.P1 order of injunction and Ext.P2 order from the 3rd respondent restraining the 6th respondent from conducting quarrying operations in his property, the 6th respondent is still continuing quarrying operations and blasting rocks from his property, in violation of those orders causing destruction to the properties of the petitioner as well as the owners of the neighbouring properties. The petitioner would also contend that respondents 6 and 7 have not obtained appropriate licenses, permits, consent etc. for such quarrying. According to the petitioner, despite appraising the 4th respondent of the illegal quarrying by respondents 6 and 7, he is not taking any steps to prevent the same. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 4th and 5th respondents to initiate appropriate steps to stop the illegal quarrying operations and blasting of rocks that is being carried out by the respondents 6 and 7 without any license from the competent authorities that too after ignoring Ext.P1 and P2 orders. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to issue urgent orders to the 4th and 5th respondent to initiate appropriate legal actions against the 6th respondent against the violation of the Ext.P1 and P2 orders in the light of Ext.P3 report of the Village Officer, Pallichal and Ext.P4 report, forthwith. iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction, directing the 5th respondent not to permit the 6th and 7th respondents to blast any rocks in their properties and to transport the same especially when the blasting operations were stayed by Ext.P1 interim injunction and Ext.P2 order of the 3rd respondent 2 forthwith. iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ order or direction, commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders in Ext.P5 complaint after getting report from the 4th respondent regarding the unauthorized quarrying works of the respondents 6 & 7 as expeditiously as possible.” 2. Although in the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent, it is stated that the quarrying is done without causing any harm or danger to the petitioner or anyone in the neigbourhood and that he has obtained permit from the Geologist, the 6th respondent does not dispute Exts.P1 or P2 orders. Therefore, in so far as Exts.P1 and P2 orders are in force, he cannot conduct quarrying operations. Further, he cannot conduct quarrying without proper licenses, permits, consent etc. from the Panchayat, Pollution Control Board and other authorities. In fact, by order dated 23.5.2008, I had directed as follows: “Respondents 2 to 5 shall ensure that respondents 6 to 7 do not carry out quarrying operations except with valid licences, permits, consent etc. from the appropriate authority.” 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 2 to 5 to ensure that respondents 6 and 7 do not carry out any quarrying operations in the property in question except with valid licences, permits, consent etc. from the appropriate authorities. In any event, respondents 6 and 7 shall not do any quarrying operations as long as Exts.P1 and P2 are in force. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3