IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7805 of 2009(U)
1. BABU.P.KURIAKOSE,PALLATHUKUDI HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM.
3. BABY VARKEY, MAPLAKUDY, SOUTH KATHIPARA,
For Petitioner :SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :21/10/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) Nos. 7805/2009-U &
8778/2009-N
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Both the writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner. In W.P.(C)
No.7805/2009 the challenge is against Ext.P11, a communication issued by
the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board,
Kothamangalam directing the petitioner to stop all the activities relating to
the blasting of rock and removal of earth near an electric line and tower. In
W.P.(C) No.8778/2009 the challenge is against the stop memo issued as per
Ext.P10 by the Tahsildar, Devikulam.
2. The fourth respondent in W.P.(C) No.8778/2009 wherein Exts.R4
(a) and R4(b) have been produced, which are prohibitory orders issued
against the petitioner on the premise that he has violated the lease
conditions.
3. Along with the reply affidavit, the petitioner has produced
Ext.P14, a notice issued by the Director of Mining and Geology, proposing
to permanently prohibit quarrying in the area wherein the petitioner was
conducting the quarry. The petitioner submitted Ext.P15 reply also.
wpc 7805/2009 &
8778/2009 2
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far no final orders have
been passed on Ext.P14. It is pointed out that the quarrying operations
have been stopped from 2007 onwards. It is further submitted that a joint
inspection was conducted in the area and a report has already been
submitted by the Revenue authorities. Learned Govt. Pleader submitted
that in the light of the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court,
various enquiries are going on with regard to the conduct of quarries in
various districts and the same may also have to be considered by the
authorities concerned. I am not finally deciding anything on the merits of
the matter in the light of the fact that the Director of Mining and Geology,
the second respondent in W.P.(C) No.8778/2009 has to take an appropriate
decision on Ext.P14.
4. Therefore there will be a direction to the second respondent in
W.P.(C) No.8778/2009 to take an appropriate decision on Ext.P14 in
accordance with law and after conducting enquiries and getting reports from
various departments including the reports made as per the directions issued
by the Division Bench.
The writ petitions are disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/