IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32990 of 2008(B)
1. K.P.ABDULLA, AGED 39 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. OMASSERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
... Respondent
2. GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY
3. ABUBACKER HAJI, PEEDIKAKANDY,
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM
For Respondent :SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :16/06/2009
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 32990 OF 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner’s complaint in this writ petition is that the 3rd
respondent is conducting quarrying operations in his property by
blasting granite without licence from the appropriate authorities,
which according to the petitioner is admitted in Ext.P1, which is a
communication issued by the 1st respondent Panchayat to the
petitioner. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:
“i. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the first respondent to
ensure that without necessary licences from the first and second
respondent no quarrying operation is carried out in the property
situating in R.S. No.32/1 of Puthur amsom and Vennakode desom
of the Kozhikode taluk and also to ensure that no damage or
danger is caused to the houses situating nearby or to their
residents.
ii. to direct the 1st respondent that no quarrying operation is
carried out in the property situating in R.S. No.32/1 of Puthur
amsom and Vennakode desom of the Kozhikode without
appropriate licence from it.
iii. direct the second respondent to initiate action on
Exhibit.P3 letter issued by the first respondent.”
2. The counsel for the Panchayat would submit that although in
WPC :32990/08
-:2:-
Ext.P1 it is admitted that the 3rd respondent has not obtained any
licence from the Panchayat, it is not admitted therein that the 3rd
respondent is conducting any quarrying operations.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent
Geologist, wherein he would submit that the 3rd respondent operates
the quarry with valid quarrying permit issued by the 2nd respondent.
3. Counsel for the petitioner points out that even assuming that
the petitioner has obtained a quarrying permit, admittedly, as
revealed by Ext.P1, the Panchayat has not issued any permit for
quarrying to anybody within the Panchayat area. Since under the
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, a licence from the Panchayat is
mandatory for operating a quarry, without such licence, the 3rd
respondent cannot engage any quarrying.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. At the time
of admission this Court had passed the following interim order on
10.04.08:
“Notice on admission by speed post to the respondents. In the
meanwhile, 1st respondent shall ensure that the 3rd respondent carries on any
quarry in the property comprised in Sy. No.32/1 of of Puthur amsom and
Vennakode desom in Kozhikode Taluk only if he has obtained requisite
permission and licence in that behalf under the Explosives Act and Rules and
WPC :32990/08
-:3:-
the Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Copy of this order shall be produced
before the 1st respondent along with the writ petition.”
5. The 3rd respondent has not chosen to file any counter
affidavit in the matter and when the matter was taken up today, there
is no appearance for the 3rd respondent also. That being so, the
allegation that the 3rd respondent does not have a licence from the
Panchayat, stands uncontroverted. Under law, without such a
licence from the Panchayat, the 3rd respondent cannot operate the
quarry. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of
with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to see that the 3rd respondent
does not do any quarrying work in the property in question without
appropriate licence/permit/consent etc. from all authorities concerned
including licence from the Panchayat.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
ttb