High Court Kerala High Court

Suresh.T.V vs Sub Divisional Magistrate on 2 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
Suresh.T.V vs Sub Divisional Magistrate on 2 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 3384 of 2009(C)


1. SURESH.T.V, S/O. THALASSERY VEETTIL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
                       ...       Respondent

2. M.RAJAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT

3. VILLAGE OFFICER

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.A.JALEEL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :02/02/2009

 O R D E R
                    ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
               -----------------------
                 W.P.(C).No.3384 OF 2009
              ------------------------
          Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009.

                         JUDGMENT

Petitioner claims to be a brick manufacturer, using

the clay brought from outside. According to the petitioner,

Ext.P4 order has been issued by the first respondent

exercising his powers under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C,

prohibiting excavation of clay. It is stated that, on the

strength of Ext.P4, although the petitioner is not excavating

any clay as mentioned in the said order, the brick

manufacturing activities are ordered to be stopped.

2. It is stated that since his activities are not covered

by Ext.P4, irrespective of the said order, he is entitled to

carry on his brick manufacturing activities utilizing the clay

brought from outside. On this basis it is contended that the

action of respondents 1 and 2 in ordering closure of his

establishment is illegal.

3. However, from Ext.P4 order it is seen that it is only

a preliminary order and it is open to the petitioner to

WP(c).No.3384/09 2

appear before the first respondent and satisfy him that he is

not engaged in excavation of clay and therefore he is outside

the purview of Ext.P4.

4. If the petitioner is able to satisfy the first respondent

as above, I have no reason to think that the first respondent

will not issue orders permitting the petitioners to resume his

activities.

Therefore, I direct the petitioner to approach the first

respondent producing the documents substantiating his

contention that he is not engaged in excavation of clay and

manufacturing the bricks utilizing the clay brought from

outside. If the petitioner produces such materials, the first

respondent shall immediately examine his claim and take a

decision in this matter adverting to the materials produced by

him.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before

the first respondent for compliance.

vi
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE

WP(c).No.3384/09 3