Kunju Pennu vs Geologist on 3 March, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36422 of 2008(J)


1. KUNJU PENNU, W/O.SANKARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. GEOLOGIST,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM

3. V.JYOTHI KUMAR, NARIYIDACHARUVILA HOUSE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :03/03/2009

 O R D E R
                           ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                          ==============
                     W.P.(C) NO. 36422 OF 2008 (J)
                    ====================

                 Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009

                              J U D G M E N T

The complaint of the petitioner is regarding the blasting conducted

by the 3rd respondent in a property which the petitioner says is adjacent to

her. According to her, the 3rd respondent has resorted to such activities

without obtaining any licence and that Exts.P2 and P3 complaints made by

the petitioner to respondents 1 and 2 were also not responded. It is in

these circumstances, the writ petition was filed praying for compelling the

respondents to interfere in this matter.

2. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit producing

Ext.R3(a) permit. It is also stated that there were several litigations

between the parties before the Civil Court. The 3rd respondent in the

counter affidavit has also stated that the residence of the petitioner is

situated about 60 metres away from the blasting site and that she has

been set up by interested parties.

3. Irrespective of the controversies that have been raised by

both sides in this writ petition, what I notice from Ext.R3(a) is that the

period of Ext.R3(a) has expired on 9/1/2009. It is stated that an

application for its renewal has been made and that it is being considered

WPC 36422/08
:2 :

by the 1st respondent pursuant to the orders passed by this Court.

4. Now that the application for renewal is made and as the

petitioner has raised complaints about the blasting, I direct the 1st

respondent to consider the objections of the petitioner also as and when a

decision on the application for renewal is taken.

Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st

respondent for compliance.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp