IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6959 of 2008(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------------- SANY FRANCIS, S/O.LATE K.C. FRANCIS, AGED 43 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOLY FAITH BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS (P)LTD. 34/2353, MAMANGALAM, KOCHI – 682025. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MINING & GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE JOINT CHIEF COTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES SOUTH CIRCLE, CHENNAI. 4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOCHI. 5. SMT. ROSILINE JOHN, W/O.V.P.JOHN AGED 55 YEARS, VADASSERY HOUSE, PACHALAM, KOCHI 682 012. 6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 7. THRIKKAKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRIKKAKARA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR R7 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SRI.S.SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.6959 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 6th March, 2008 JUDGMENT Even though Mr.Martin Jose, counsel for the 5th respondent would request for time to file counter affidavit to this Writ Petition, considering the prayers in the Writ Petition, I am not inclined to grant time. Mr.Shanavaskhan, counsel for the 7th respondent-Panchayat submits that if this court so directs, the Panchayat will not have any obection in hearing the writ petitioner also when the licence renewal application submitted by the 5th respondent comes up for consideration. The petitioner has produced Ext.P1 series photographs to support his case that the operation of the 5th respondent's quarry endangers his building. May be the petitioner's version is somewhat exaggerated. Even then I am not prepared to say that the objections raised by the petitioner regarding the quarrying operations of the 5th respondent are totally frivolous. Mr.Martin would submit that the civil court has now found against the persons who had raised complaints similar to those raised by the petitioner. According to him, the R.D.O. had found similar objections to be without basis. It is open to the petitioner and the 5th respondent to highlight all these aspects before the Panchayat when the Panchayat takes up 5th respondent's W.P.C.No.6959/08 - 2 - application for renewal of licence. I dispose of the Writ Petition directing the Secretary of the 7th respondent-Panchayat to take a decision on the application for renewal of licence submitted by the 5th respondent for his quarry only after hearing the petitioner also apart from hearing the 5th respondent. It is open to the petitioner and the 5th respondent to place all relevant materials before the Secretary of the Panchayat and highlight all relevant aspects. Decision as directed above will be taken on the licence renewal application submitted by the 5th respondent by the Secretary of the Panchayat at the earliest and at any rate before the 30th instant. The licence renewal application and Ext.P5 will be considered simultaneously by the Secretary of the Panchayat. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE