IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7478 of 2005(M)
1. N.U.SABU S/O. ULAHANNAN,
... Petitioner
2. PALLYAN KUNJAPPAN, PARAYIL,
3. MANOJ S/O. VARGHESE, PONTHAVANAL,
Vs
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM CIVIL
... Respondent
2. MARADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
3. THANKACHAN S/O. PATHROSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)
For Respondent :SRI.T.K.RAJESHKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :23/10/2008
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 7478 of 2005
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 23rd October, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners have filed this writ petition complaining that the 3rd
respondent is conducting quarrying operations in 1 acre and 30 cents
of land within the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent-Panchayat without
obtaining a licence. The petitioners therefore seek the following
reliefs:
“i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the 1st respondent to take immediate
and effective action against the illegal storage and using of
explosives by the 3rd respondent/
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to take immediate
measures to stop the illegal quarrying operation in the property of
the 3rd respondent i.e. nearly one acre 30 cents in Sy. Nos. 1066/2A
and 1066/2B of Marady village, Muvattupuzha Taluk.”
2. The 2nd respondent-Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit
stating that the 3rd respondent has not obtained any licence for
quarrying and therefore a show cause notice Ext. R2(a) and a stop
memo Ext. R2(b) have been issued to the 3rd respondent. Since the 3rd
respondent did not comply with the same, Ext. R2(c) letter has been
issued to the 1st respondent informing about the illegal activities of
the 3rd respondent. A letter Ext. R2(d) was also issued to Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Muvattupuzha seeking police assistance to
enforce the stop memo issued against the 3rd respondent. However,
it is stated in the counter affidavit that in spite of these efforts, the 3rd
respondent is continuing illegal quarrying operation.
3. The 3rd respondent has not filed any counter affidavit before
this Court . None appears for the 3rd respondent also to oppose the
writ petition. In view of the counter affidavit, it is abundantly clear
that the 3rd respondent cannot continue the quarrying operations.
Accordingly, respondents 1 and 2 shall take appropriate steps to see
W.P.C. No. 7478/2005. -: 2 :-
that the 3rd respondent does not continue quarrying operations in the
land in question. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Muvattupuzha
shall see that appropriate assistance is given to the 2nd respondent to
see that the 3rd respondent does not continue with the quarrying
operations.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/