IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 2297 of 2008(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. BIJOY PUNNOOSE, S/O.C.P.PUNNOOSE, CHAVARAMPLACKIL HOUSE, H.NO.X/25, MANEED PANCHAYATH, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 2. ABRAHAM CHACKO, S/O.CHACKO, ELAVUMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, H.NO.X/19, MANEED PANCHAYATH, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 3. K.C.MATHAI, S/O.CHERIAN, KALLIDIYIL HOUSE, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 4. C.M.DAVID, S/O.MATHAI KURIAKOSE, CHAMALAYIL HOUSE, H.NO.X/26, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF SRI.K.PAUL KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHANDRAN, CHATHAMKULANGARA HOUSE (KAKKATTUMATTATHIL), MANEED PANCHAYATH, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 2. P.N.PRAKASH, PULLARKATTU HOUSE, MANEED P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 6. THE SECRETARY, MANEED GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MANEED P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. DISTRICT OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF EXPLOSIVES, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 8. VALSA JACOB, CHENNAKKATTU HOUSE, IKKAMAD VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE FOR R6 SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR FOR R6 SRI.V.GOPIKRISHNA FOR R1 & R2 SRI.P.K.VARGHESE FOR R8 GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 2297/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.5.10.07 BY R3. P2. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.22.10.07 BEFORE R4. P3 COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.23.11.07 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE TALUK OFFICE. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.2297 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are residents of Maneed Panchayath. Their grievance in this writ petition is that respondents 1 and 2 are conducting illegal quarrying operations in the property owned by the 8th respondent using explosives. According to them, for such quarrying operations respondents 1 and 2 or the 8th respondent have not obtained any licence, permits, consent etc. from the Grama Panchayat, Department of Mining and Geology, Department of Explosives, Pollution Control Board etc. The petitioners, therefore, seek the following reliefs: “(A) To call for the records and proceedings of respondents relating to Exhibit P1 to P3 and after scrutiny thereof to direct respondents 3 to 7 to take appropriate action against the illegal quarrying operations done by respondents 1, 2 and 8 by the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction. (B) To direct respondents 3 to 7 to do all that is necessary to ensure that no illegal quarrying operations are conducted by respondents 1, 2 and 8 or anyone else in the property owned by the 8th respondent, by the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction. (C) To grant any other further or consequential reliefs, including any interim relief as may be prayed for and deemed fit by this Honourable Court, and (D) To allow this Writ Petition with costs.” 2. Respondents 1 and 2 have not chosen to file any counter affidavit. The 8th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating thus; “3. It is respected (sic) fully submitted that survey Nos.187/3A, 188/1 and 188/3 are my property. Averments in paragraph 5 that the 2 quarrying operations are being done (sic) respondents 1 and 2 in the land situated on the northern side of survey Nos.187/3A, 188/1 and 188/3, which is owned by one Valsa Jacob, the 8th respondent is false and hence denied. No quarrying operations are being done in my land by respondents Nos.1 and 2. The averment that the 2nd respondent is my agent is false and hence denied.” 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that in this particular property, respondents 1 and 2 are conducting quarrying operations without obtaining appropriate permits, licences, consent etc. and respondents 1 and 2 were conducting quarrying operations without obtaining permit from the Geologist till 2008. Therefore, a stop memo has been issued to them. The learned standing counsel for the 6th respondent-Secretary of the Grama Panchayat now submits that the Panchayat has not issued any licence for quarrying to respondents 1 and 2. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. 5. From Ext.P3 report from the Village Officer it is clear that quarrying operations are being conducted in the property in question. Respondents 1 and 2 have not chosen to contest the matter. The 8th respondent has taken the stand that quarrying operations are not being conducted in her property. However, it is clear that quarrying operations are being conducted, going by Ext.P3 report from the Village Officer. It is also celar that no permit by the Geologist or the licences by the Panchayat have been issued. That being so, it is the duty of respondents 3 to 7 to see that respondents 1 and 2 do not 3 undertake any quarrying operations in survey Nos.187/3A, 188/1 and 188/3 belonging to the 8th respondent. They shall do so by taking appropriate coercive steps in the matter promptly, forthwith. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge