IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24047 of 2008(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SUNNY VARGHESE, S/O.K.C. VARGHESE, AGED 50, KOIKKARA HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM.P.O, PALLIKKARA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. VADAVUCODE PUTHENCRUZ GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR FOR R1, ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY FOR R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 23122/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.24047/2008-K: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LICENCE DTD. 25/03/2008 OF THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 27/09/05 OF THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CONSENT DTD. 15/09/07 OF THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 21/05/08 OF THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 03/06/05 IN W.P.(C). NO. 15371/05. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 15/06/05 IN W.P.(C). NO. 14176/05. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE LICENCE DTD. 02/04/07 OF THE R.2. GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 20/02/08 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 28/02/08 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE LICENCE DTD. 28/04/08. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 06/08/08 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE PERMIT DTD. 07/04/2008 ISSUED BY THE MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT. EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE PERMIT DTD. 09/06/2008 ISSUED BY THE MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT. EXT.R2.C: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 08/08/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS. EXT.R2.D: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 08/08/2008 BEARING NUMBER A2-62/05 DISMISSING EXHIBIT.P.11. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) Nos. 24047 & 23122 OF 2008K = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of August 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in W.P.(C) No. 24047/08 is to direct the 2nd respondent Panchayat to extend the period of Ext. P10 licence till 31.3.2009. There is a further prayer to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext. P11 petition. 2. The facts of these cases are that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 24047/08 contends that he has got Exts. P1 to P4, explosive licence, mining lease, consent of the Pollution Control Board and registration of a metal crusher unit. It is stated that on the strength of these documents D & O licence was granted by the Panchayat and in so far as this writ petition is concerned, Ext. P8 is the application made by the petitioner for renewal of the licence for the year 2008- 09. 3. According to the Panchayat, as Ext. R2(a) permit was valid till 6.5.2008, petitioner was granted Ext. P10 licence, confining it upto 6.5.2008. It is stated that subsequently on the production of Ext. R2(b), permit for the period upto 8.8.2008 by Ext. P10 licence W.P.(C) Nos. 24047 & 23122 OF 2008 -2- was granted for the period upto 6.5.2008, and that thereafter it was extended till 8.8.2008. It is stated that on the expiry of the period of the licence as above he submitted Ext. P11 application for extension and that orders were not passed on the application. It is also the petitioner's case that a permit similar to Ext. R2(a) and (b) for the period upto 7.10.2008 has since been issued to him. 4. The Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit in which it has produced Ext. R2(d) communication from which what is disclosed is that in view of the repeated complaints that it received from the neighbouring residents, the Secretary is awaiting the orders of the Committee of the Panchayat for deciding on the application made by the petitioner. 5. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 23122/08 are the neighbouring residents, who complain that in violation of the statutory provisions, blasting is carried on, as a result of which extensive damage is caused to their residential houses. According to the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 23122/08, though the licence granted by the Panchayat to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 24047/08, only authorised him to carry on blasting in Sy. No. 70/6, he has been carrying on blasting in Sy. Nos. 69/1/2 and 69/1 of W.P.(C) Nos. 24047 & 23122 OF 2008 -3- Puthencruz Village as well. Petitioners contend that by the continued blasting in Sy. No. 70/6 there is no granite available further quarrying. 6. Taking into account the averments in W.P.(C) No. 23122/08, this Court had passed order dated 31.7.2008, directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha to conduct an inspection and submit a report before this Court. In pursuance to the said order, the RDO has conducted an inspection and submitted his report dated 12.8.2008 which reveals that he had inspected “the quarry functioning in Sy. No. 70/6, 69/1/2 and 69/1 of Puthencruz Village.” He has also given the distance from the quarry to the residential houses of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 23122/08 and has also stated that the chances of the granite falling on the house of the petitioner is rare. It is also stated that the effect of blasting is a matter to be ascertained through experts of Explosives Department. 7. As already noticed, the licences granted to the petitioner are Exts.P7 and P10. A reading of these licences shows that, the premises where the petitioner is authorised to quarry is in Sy.No.70/6. If that be so, there cannot be any objection in the W.P.(C) Nos. 24047 & 23122 OF 2008 -4- petitioner continuing quarrying operations in the aforesaid premises. However, a reading of the report submitted by the RDO shows that he has reported that the quarry is functioning not only in this survey number, but also in Sy.No.69/1/2 and 69/1 of Puthencruz Village. It is also the case of the petitioners in WP(C) No.23122/08 that there is no scope for further quarrying in Sy.No.70/6, the licenced premises due to nonavailability of granite. 8. In view of the terms of the licence, as the entitlement of the petitioner for quarrying is confined to the land in Sy.No.70/6 and particularly taking note of the contention raised by the petitioners in WP(C) 23122/08, it needs to be ascertained as to whether further quarrying in that area is possible. In my view, the most competent officer, who can conduct the inspection in this regard and ascertain the matter is none other than the RDO, Muvattupuzha, who has already conducted an inspection pursuant to the order dated 31/7/2008. Therefore, I direct the said officer to conduct inspection if necessary, taking assistance of the Taluk Surveyor, and ascertain as to whether there is any scope for further quarrying in Sy.No.70/6 of Puthencruz Village. 9. On such Survey, if the report is one indicating that further W.P.(C) Nos. 24047 & 23122 OF 2008 -5- quarrying is possible, on receipt thereof, the Panchayat shall consider Ext.P11 application made by the petitioner in WP(C) No.24047/08 for further extension of the period of the licence, provided petitioner produces before the Panchayat the permit similar to Ext.R2(a) and (b) extending the period thereof beyond 8.8.2008. 10. The inspection as above shall be conducted and report made to the Panchayat, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the report as above, the Panchayat shall also decide the matter within one week thereafter. Petitioner in WP(C) No.24047/08 shall produce a copy of this judgment before the RDO, Moovattupuzha and the respondent Panchayat for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-