IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3391 of 2011(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- PALLAPRAM COIR VYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGAM LTD.NO.598, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN CHARGE, PONNANI SOUTH (PO), PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONNANI, PONNANI (PO), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONNANI POLICE STATION, PONNANI (PO), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505. 3. UMMER, S/O.BAVAKUTTY, KAPPAKARATHU HOUSE, PONNANI SOUTH (PO), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 508. 4. THE CONSERVATOR OF PORT, OFFICE OF THE PORT CONSERVATOR, PONNANI PORT, PONNANI (PO), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 508. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPIN DAS R3 BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 3391 of 2011(Y) ------------------------------------ APPENDIX ----------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF GO(MS) NO.17/20/10F&PD DATED 18.03.2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 17.05.2010 ISSUED BY THE PORT CONSERVATOR, PONNANI PORT TO THE PETITIONER SOCIETY. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 03.01.2011 ISSUED BY THE PORT CONSERATOR, PONNANI PORT TO THE PETITIONER SOCIETY. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE ITERIM ORDER DATED 06.10.2010 IN W.P. © NO.30683 OF 2010 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25.01.2011 FILED BY THE SECRETRY OF THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING EXHIBIT P5 PETITION BY THE 2ND RESPODENT. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING EXHIBIT P5 PETITION BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPODENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL ---------------------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.3391 of 2011-Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner is a co-operative society. Going by the averments in the writ petition and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the third respondent through his counsel, it appears that the petitioner is granted a permit by the fourth respondent to remove sand from Ponnani Port Channel. The petitioner can remove that sand and sell it only in obedience to the Ext.P4 interim order issued by the Division Bench which obliges that the sale of sand shall only be to persons who are consumers in Malappuram district. In terms of Ext.P4, the Malappuram District Expert Level Committee, the Ponnani Municipality, the Kadavu Committee Ponnani and WPC3391/11 -: 2 :- the State High Level Committee, as also the State of Kerala are obliged to ensure that the said interim order is given effect to, though the petitioner is not a party to that writ petition, going by the cause title of Ext.P4. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that thereafter, the petitioner has been impleaded in that writ petition. Therefore, the writ petitioner herein is also bound by that interim order. The objection of the third respondent as presented by his learned counsel is that the petitioner is likely to involve in activities violating the directions contained in Ext.P4 and the allegations made against the third respondent herein are merely camouflages to get over that situation. Under such circumstances, all that is required is that if the third respondent has any complaint about the petitioner's activities, that may be brought to the notice of any among respondents 3 to 5 in Ext.P4 or the District Collector of Malappuram district. Such complaint could also be placed before the fourth WPC3391/11 -: 3 :- respondent. Bereft of that, the third respondent will have no authority to obstruct any activity of the petitioner. It is so ordered. The police officers will ensure that these directions and Ext.P4 order of the Division Bench are honoured in letter and spirit. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. S.S.Satheesachandran, Judge. Sha/1402