IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31877 of 2004(T)
1. M.P. OUSEPH, MALIACKAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.V. THOMAS, PULLAN HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. MARY THOMAS, W/O. P.V. THOMAS,
3. P.J. POULOSE, PARAMBI HOUSE,
4. PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
5. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
6. GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE,
7. DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES
8. KERALA STATE POLLUTINO CONTROL BOARD,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD
For Respondent :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :27/01/2011
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.31877 Of 2004
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JANUARY, 2011
J U D G M E N T
The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the
conduct of a quarry allegedly near his residential house, violating
the relevant rules in the matter.
2. Various directions have been issued by this Court
during the pendency of the Writ Petition and it is pointed out that
the quarry had stopped functioning in the light of the interim
orders passed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Pollution
Control Board and the learned counsel for the Panchayat. The
learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board
submitted that there is no consent for operating the quarry by
the respondents concerned. The learned counsel for the
Panchayat also submitted that the Panchayat has not issued any
licence. In that view of the matter, there cannot be any doubt
that respondents 1 to 3 cannot operate the quarry.
4. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 then
submitted that there are unobjectionable parts in the property
W.P.(C)No.31877/04 -2-
where quarrying can be done. It is a matter which the said
respondents can agitate before the licensing authorities
concerned and I am not expressing anything on the merits of it.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
dsn
True copy
P.A. to Judge