IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5234 of 2005(W) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M.D. GEORGE AND CO., VADAVUCODE P.O., PUTHENCRUZ REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER M.D. GOERGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, KUNNATHUNAD. BY ADV.SRI.V.MANU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 30523 OF 2004 WPC NO. 30446 OF 2004 WPC NO. 33695 OF 2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NOs.30523, 33695, 30446 of 2004 & 5234 of 2005 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF JULY, 2009 JUDGMENT These writ petitions relate to the functioning of a quarry and a metal crusher unit. The operator is M.D.George and Company, which has filed WP(C)5234 of 2005, challenging the stop memo issued by the Tahsildar, faced with a contempt of court proceedings generated by this bunch of matters. The contempt of court case stands closed. 2. The complaint against the aforesaid operator is that under the cover of a license over a very small extent or even without license, the said operator is carrying on quarrying activities in violation of the law relating to mines and minerals including minor minerals. The photographs placed on record in some of these writ petitions disclose the devastating effect on nature and also the drastic and dangerous impact on the topography of the area involved. But, to this court this does not generate any surprise since this has become a regular factor and feature, following to spread over the entire land sweetly called Wpc 5234/2005 & conn. 2 the `God's own country' , a name held out to promote tourism, though the violent acts of wrecking the nature essentially show that she has devils as men though she survives to be God's own country. May be God is trying to save and keep her alive. 3. With the passage of time, yet another matter WP(C)6380 of 2009 had come up in relation to the same operator. That relates to the question as to whether a metal crusher unit with an operational capacity of 200 HP has to apply for a consent to establish afresh, if it were to reduce the capacity to 90 HP. An attendant order of the grama panchayat and the Tribunal for Local Self Government institutions was under challenge in that writ petition, viz WP(C) 6380 of 2009. When that matter was taken up on 8.7.2009, it was submitted before me that the operator has confined his operational requirement to be restricted to the metal crushing unit on the undertaking that he would not operate the quarry. It was also submitted that he is not operating the quarry as of now and that he had stopped the operation of metal crusher unit and had not obtained renewal of license from the panchayat for quite sometime now and he has applied only for renewal of license to operate the metal crusher unit. With Wpc 5234/2005 & conn. 3 such submission, this court was satisfied that he has essentially abandoned his pursuit of operating the quarry in question and has accordingly issued an order on 8.7.2009 requiring the Pollution Control Board to state regarding the requirement of a consent to operate afresh, for the renewal, if any, of the license for the metal crusher unit. 4. With the aforesaid submissions of the operator, the complainant in these writ petitions, that is petitioners in all these matters, except WP(C)5234 of 2005, can stand satisfied of the fact that the operations sought to be prevented has been brought to an end. It is so ordered, holding that the operator, viz the petitioner in WP(C)5234 of 2005 is not entitled to carry out any activity of quarrying in the area in question. 5. Accordingly, WP(C)5234 of 2005 will stand dismissed. 6. It is quite surprising that the materials on record disclose that for a permit to quarry about 50,000 metric tonnes, it is stated that operator had amassed and taken away approximately 7,50,000/- metric tonnes and has paid royalty only for a negligible portion of the materials. This reflects the failure of the executive establishments concerned. Those Wpc 5234/2005 & conn. 4 responsible have not taken adequate steps to prevent the illegal mining. They have also not secured the interest of the State by ensuring due remittance to the exchequer. The prohibitory order regarding the quarrying came only because of the interlocutory orders in these matters. There is reason to take the view that the officials who are involved in the matter or who ought to have acted with due diligence as public servants, are either unfit to hold the public office held by them, or otherwise, were thoroughly negligent in carrying out their duties and responsibilities. If these two inferences are to be excused, the third would necessarily be that they were corrupt and their palms were greased to push through this assault to national wealth. The atrocious inaction is not an error of judgment. It is sheer failure to discharge duties and responsibilities; public, including statutory. 7. This judgment will obtain necessary attention of the Chief Secretary, the Principal Secretaries in the Department of finance, revenue and public works department and also the Director of Vigilance. The learned Government Pleader will ensure that this is done. A copy of the order dated 8.7.2009 in WP(C) 6380 of 2009 Wpc 5234/2005 & conn. 5 will stand appended to this judgment. These writ petitions are ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/14/7