IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35608 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SABU, S/O.KRISHNAN, KOTTAPURATH HOUSE, MANIYATHTHADAM, CHATTUPARA, KALLOORKADU, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.JOSHI N.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, TRIVANDRUM. 3. GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY REGIONAL OFFICE, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-20. 5. MANJALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MANJALLOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 6. THE TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, MUVATTUPUZHA. 7. ABHILASH AUGUSTINE, VAZHEKUDIYIL HOUSE, MULLARINGODU, VANNAPPURAM, THODUPUZHA. BY SC SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS GP SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).35608/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an agriculturist residing in a land having an extent of 3 Acres in Sy.No.785/1 of Manjalloor Village. It seems that the sixth respondent granted temporary permit to two person for quarrying rubble from Government Puramboke land. While so, the seventh respondent applied for granting a quarrying lease which was granted for a period of 12 years in relation to an extent of 3 Acres of Government puramboke land. 2. Petitioner's grievance is that the sixth respondent, who issued a No Objection Certificate to the seventh respondent, did so without properly inspecting the site. It seems that the third respondent later inspected the site but he did not ascertain the distance from the residential premises of the petitioner and the quarry. Petitioner submitted Exts.P4 to P6 objections in that regard asking for a revocation of the W.P.(C).35608/2008 2 lease on the ground that the grant of the lease was in violation of the distance which require a minimum distance of 100 mts from the nearest residence. It is upto the Geologist, before whom Ext.P4 has been submitted, to take a decision in the first instance. He may cause a re-measurement to be made and if it is found that there is violation of the distance rule, then, appropriate action has to be taken. 3. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to look into Ext.P4 and take appropriate decision thereon, after notice to the seventh respondent also. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs