IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34436 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- 1. K.P.VARGHESE, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.PATHROSE, KAVALANGATTY KUDY, VILANGU PO., KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. P.P.YOHANNAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.POULOSE, PARAKKATTUJALIL, VILANGU PO., KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT.J.SHEEBA MARIAM SMT.K.NANDINI RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE OF KERALA. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD 682 030 3. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINISTRY AND GEOLOGY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 030. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALWAYE 683 101. 5. THE SECRETARY, KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KIZHAKKAMBALAM 683 562. 6. DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF EXPLOSIVE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM. 7. SMT.LEELAMMA MATHEW, W/O.MATHEW, PANTHAPLACKAL, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O. - 683 562. 8. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ERNAKULAM. R8 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.JOY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 34436 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners who are residents of Kizhakambalam Grama Panchayat have filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the fifth respondent, the Secretary of Kizhakambalam Grama Panchayat to implement Ext.P3 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.14968 of 2009 in letter and spirit and to take an appropriate decision on Ext.P4 representation dated 10.11.2010 filed by the first petitioner before the Secretary of the Kizhakambalam Grama Panchayat objecting to the grant of a licence to the seventh respondent for running a quarry. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contend that a learned single Judge of this Court had by Ext.P3 judgment delivered on 3.8.2009 in W.P.(C) No.14968 of 2009 filed by these petitioners directed that the objections raised by them shall be taken into consideration by the Panchayat and the Geologist before any decision is taken to grant the 7th respondent or any of her nominees the right to carry on quarrying or such other activities and that it was without considering their objections that the local authority has granted a licence to the seventh respondent to WPC No.34436/2010 2 conduct quarrying operations. 2. Sri. M.V.Joy, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submitted that a licence was issued to Sri. Sijo Mathew , the son of the seventh respondent in October, 2010 to conduct quarrying operations and that the objections raised by the petitioners were also considered while granting licence to Sri. Sijo Mathew. The learned counsel also submitted that when the licence was earlier declined to the seventh respondent's son, he had filed W.P.(C) No.22497 of 2010 in this Court and that by judgment delivered on 2.9.2010, the said writ petition was allowed and Ext.P3 order was quashed and the Secretary of the local authority was directed to reconsider the application submitted by the seventh respondent's son and that thereafter the licence was issued. The learned counsel also submitted that as the licence has already been issued, the remedy of the petitioners, if they are aggrieved by the same, is to challenge the grant of licence in other appropriate proceedings. 3. It is evident from the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent that a licence has been issued to the seventh respondent's son to operate a quarry. Under section 276 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, an appeal lies to WPC No.34436/2010 3 the Committee of the Panchayat from the order passed by the Secretary and thereafter a revision petition lies to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The petitioners thus have a meaningful and alternate remedy by way of an appeal in which they can raise all the contentions raised in this writ petition including the plea that their objections were not considered before the licence was granted. I therefore find no grounds to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed leaving open the right of the petitioners to challenge the order passed by the fifth respondent in the application for licence submitted by the seventh respondent's son in other appropriate proceedings. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.34436/2010 4 WPC No.34436/2010 5