IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 2323 of 2010(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/12/2009 IN IA.1820/2009 IN OS.83/2009 of MUNSIFF COURT, PALA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ WALSTAIN A.J., ELAMBASSERIL HOUSE, KADAPLAMATTAM P.O., ELAKKAD VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.BABU KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. ETHAMMA JOSE, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.JOSE SEBASTIAN, THAIKKATTUKARA HOUSE, KADAPLAMATTAM P.O., ELAKKAD VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. ELIZABETH GEORGE, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.SIBI JOHN, MEDAKKAL HOUSE, KADAPLAMATTAM P.O., ELAKKAD VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR.K.C.CHARLES, MR.M.POLY MATHAI, MR.VIMAL K.CHARLES, MR.P.CHELLAPPAN, MR.E.N.HARI, SMT.A.T.RENJU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.2323/2010 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.S.NO.69/08 IN I.A.NO.500/08 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PALA DTD. 08\9/04/2008. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.S.NO.839/09 IN I.A.NO.576/09 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PALA DTD. 8/04/2009. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMA NO.11/09 OF THE SUB COURT, PALA DTD. 30/05/2009. P4: COPY OF THE BLASTERS CERTIFICATES DTD. 1/12/2009. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.S.NO.83/09 IN I.A.NO.1820/09 OF MUNSIFF COURT, PALA DTD.23/12/2009. P6: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF MINING EXAMINATION DTD. 10/01/1992. P7: COPY OF AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN PETITIONER AND ONE MR. DEVAN DTD. 30/01/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A): COPY OF I.A.1242/2009 IN O.S.83/2009. R1(B): COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN I.A.1242/2009. R1(C): COPY OF I.A.1820/2009 SEEKING POLICE HELP FOR COMPLIANCE WITH EXHIBIT P3 DIRECTION. R1(D): COPY OF LETTER DTD. 23/09/2009 ISSUED BYTHE DIRECTOR OF MINES SAFETY, CHENNAI TO THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND DEFENDANT IN THE SUIT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No. 2323 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Assailing the order of the Munsiff Court, Pala Ext.P5 dated 23.12.2009, the 1st defendant therein has come up with this writ petition before this court. 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S No.83/97 pending before the Munsiff Court Pala. That was for injunction. The prayer in the suit is for a declaration that the plaint schedule property is not fit for conducting stone quarry and also for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from conducting blasting operations. 3. Plaintiffs in the suit had filed an application for interim injunction. It is stated that though initially it was granted; it was later vacated. Plaintiffs went up in appeal as CMA No.11/09. In appeal, the appellate court found that the petitioner before this Court had not produced the valid blaster's certificate, which is essential for operating the quarrying operations. Petitioner is at liberty to produce the valid certificate and then to carry on the W.P (C) No. 2323 of 2010 2 quarrying activities. It appears that the petitioner did not do anything in the matter and that the plaintiff moved the lower court for enforcement of the interim order. It is seen that before the lower court, on two occasions two certificates were produced by the petitioner. When the Munsiff Court, Pala proceeded to consider the validity of the certificate. it seems that the petitions were not pressed. It was under those circumstances, the Munsiff's Court, Pala had proceeded to pass the impugned order. 4. In the appeal that C.M.A 11/09 the direction is clear. If the respondents produce a valid blaster's certificates, they can carry on the blasting activities. There is nothing wrong in the present order of the Munsiff Court. Pala. It is seen that no valid certificate was produced. 4. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner says that the certificate was in fact produced before the lower court, but that has not considered. Learned counsel for the respondent disputes the same. W.P (C) No. 2323 of 2010 3 5. Whatever that be, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Munsiff Court, Pala to consider whether the blasting certificate, if produced, is valid or not. If the petitioner produces the valid blaster's certificate before the Munsiff Court, Pala and is accepted by the said court said court, the petitioner will be allowed to carry on the quarrying operations. If there is already a petition producing blaster's certificate on the file of the court below seeking to dispose of the petition, the same shall be considered, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a coy of this judgment. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE ma W.P (C) No. 2323 of 2010 4 W.P (C) No. 2323 of 2010 5