IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30850 of 2010(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. SEBASTIAN, S/O.JACOB, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANAMKOMBIL HOUSE, MARIYAPURAM KARA, THANKAMANY VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. 2. JOMET, S/O.DOMINIC, AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT PADINJARAYIL HOUSE, MARIYAPURAM KARA, THANKAMANY VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU JOHN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI-685 603. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, IDUKKI-685 603. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 603. 4. M/S.CMJ GRANITES, BUILDING NO.8215, MARIYAPURAM KARA, MARIYAPURAM P.O., THANKAMANY VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAING PARTNER SEBASTIAN C.JACOB, PIN-685 603. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN, R4 BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 30850 of 2010 E ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners approached this Court praying for a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P4 objection filed by them, as and when any application by the fourth respondent is taken up for consideration. The counsel for the fourth respondent, who has entered appearance in the writ petition, submits that objecting to the continuance of the quarry of the fourth respondent, O.S.No.133/2010 was filed before the Sub Court, Kattappana. In that suit, Ext.P2 order was passed in I.A.No.853/2010 granting injunction against him on the ground that the first respondent did not possess a licence issued under the Explosives laws. It is stated that in view of the said finding in Ext.P2 order, the fourth respondent made an application to the third respondent for grant of NOC in order to obtain the licence from the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives. It is stated that it was at that stage, petitioners WPC.30850/10 : 2 : made Ext.P4 complaint to the District Collector, on the basis of which, the District Collector ordered an enquiry by the Tahsildar and PWD Buildings Engineer. The fourth respondent submits that accordingly an enquiry was conducted and the matter is now pending before the second respondent. 2. It is submitted that apart from the application made to the second respondent, the fourth respondent has not made any application to the first respondent for any licence or anything else. If that be the factual position, it is for the second respondent to consider the application made by the fourth respondent, with notice to the parties, including the petitioner, and pass orders on the application duly adverting to the reports submitted by the PWD Engineer and the Tahsildar. In view of their submissions, there is no need for directing the first respondent to issue notice to the petitioner or the parties as sought for by the petitioner. Writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing the WPC.30850/10 : 3 : second respondent to conclude the enquiry on the application made by the fourth respondent, duly adverting to the materials available and with notice to the parties, including the petitioners and giving all of them an opportunity of being heard in the matter. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks