IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32289 of 2011(S) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. SAJEEV MEMORIAL ARTS & SPORTS CLUB REG.NO.E.51/99 NY K 445/99, ATHANI, THIRUVANIYOOR.PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682308,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, THANKAPPAN.P.P, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.PALLIYAN, PATTAMMARUKUDIYIL, THIRUVANIYOOR, PIN-682308. 2. GYALAXI ARTS & SPORTS CLUB, REG.NO.ER. 1336/98, KUPPETHAZHAM, THIRUVANIYOOR REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, NIRMAL KUMAR.S, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.M.R.SURENDRAN, THIRUMALAYIL,THIRUVANIYOOR.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON ABRAHAM SRI.NELSON ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA-686601. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE,THIRUVANIYUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THIRUVANIYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANIYOOR.P.O, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. K.V.JOY, S/O.K.V.VARGHESE, KALLAPPARA, MORAKKALA, KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 6. ANNAMMA,W/O.K.V.JOY,KALLAPPARA, MORAKKALA,KUNATHUNADU VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 7. V.D.MOHAMMED BASHEER, PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND REFORMS), IST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.JAMES MATHEW KADAVAN R1-R3 ADV. SRI.T.B.THANKAPPAN FOR R5 & 6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC 32289/2011 EXT. P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CERTIFIED COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF FIRST PETITIONER DT. 9.10.2000 EXT.P1(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P1 EXT. P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE SECOND PETITIONER DT. 4.11.98 EXT.P2(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P2 EXT. P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 31184/2010 DT. 22.12.2010 EXT. P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DT. 1.2.2011 EXT.P4(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P4 EXT. P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE KERALA SASTHRA SAHITHYA PARISHAD NADUKURISU UNIT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DT. 24.10.2011 BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXT.P5(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P5 EXT. P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESPLY DT. 4.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVANIYUR EXT.P6(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P6 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 32289 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. This writ petition styled as 'public interest litigation' has been preferred by the petitioners, who are stated as two Arts & Sports Clubs in the locality against the permission granted by the 1st respondent for leveling the soil in the property of respondent Nos.5 and 6. 2. The challenge is raised on the ground that the action proposed to be pursued by respondents 5 & 6 based on the impugned order is likely to create environmental problems including the adverse consequences resulted to the well situated nearby and also the property of the neighbours concerned. 3. The sequence of events as described in the writ petition is referable to the earlier rounds of litigation at the instance of respondents 5 & 6, who sought for permission to level their property by filing an application before the 1st respondent. Pointing out the facts and figures that the property had to be W.P.(C) 32289 of 2011 -:2:- brought down to the level of the road situated nearby, more so, in furtherance to the intention to have the property utilised for the purpose of cultivation, the matter was caused to be considered by the 1st respondent/RDO. After considering the matter, the 1st respondent granted the sanction subject to the 'NOC' to be obtained from the local authority concerned. This made respondents 5 and 6 to approach this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.31184 of 2010, which culminated in Ext.P3 judgment. 4. After hearing both the sides, the learned Single Judge of this Court observed that, absolutely no provision of law was brought to the notice of the Court as to the requirement to have obtained 'NOC' from the Local Authority for removing earth from the property owned by the said Writ Petitioners/respondents 5 and 6 herein. No such provision is ever there, in the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 and once the requirements under the said rules formulated by the State by virtue of the rule making power under the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 are satisfied, the respondents 5 and 6 are entitled to have the benefit of sanction. It was in the said W.P.(C) 32289 of 2011 -:3:- circumstance, that the order passed by the RDO was set aside and the matter was directed to be reconsidered in the manner as specified therein. 5. Pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment the application preferred by respondents 5 and 6 was reconsidered by the 1st respondent who passed Ext.P4 order dated 01.02.2011 granting necessary sanction subject to certain specific conditions as extracted below (as per the English version given in Ext.P4(a) submitted by the petitioners): “Conditions: 1. The removed earth shall not be used for filling paddy field. 2. Any damage shall not be caused to the neighbouring properties due to removal of earth. 3. Sufficient lateral support to the neighbouring properties shall be preserved while removing earth. 4. Necessary measures shall be taken to prevent dust pollution while removing the earth. 5. The earth shall be removed only by retaining one metre height from the road level.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the observation made by the 1st respondent in the impugned order is not at all correct with regard to the description of the W.P.(C) 32289 of 2011 -:4:- topography and the property belonging to the neighbours. It is also stated that the neighbours who own property at the same level are likely to be adversely affected because of the order passed vide Ext.P4. Obviously, the so called neighbours are not before this Court; nor do they have any challenge with regard to the order passed by the 1st respondent. We are only concerned with the question as to the alleged 'public interest' involved in the matter, more so, with reference to the so-called ecological imbalances or detrimental aspects likely to be caused to the public including the well situated nearby. 7. After hearing the matter at length, this Court finds that no sufficient grounds have been established in the writ petition warranting interference, holding that anything detrimental to the environment or ecology is likely to be resulted on giving effect to Ext.P4. That apart, the 1st respondent has stipulated specific conditions to be satisfied by respondents 5 and 6 for availing the benefit flowing from Ext.P4. The same will take care of the properties belonging to the neighbours and such other relevant incidental aspects. W.P.(C) 32289 of 2011 -:5:- In the said circumstance, we find that there is absolutely no tenable ground calling for interference. The Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb