P.V.Elias vs The Geologist on 20 February, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 5246 of 2009(A)


1. P.V.ELIAS, PARASSERIL, MULAKULAM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE GEOLOGIST,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

5. MULAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.P.JACOB

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :20/02/2009

 O R D E R
                    ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
              -----------------------
                 W.P.(C).No.5246 OF 2009
              ------------------------
          Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009.

                         JUDGMENT

Grievance of the petitioner is regarding Ext.P14, a

prohibitory order issued by the 3rd respondent.

2. According to the petitioner he has all necessary

licenses for carrying on the brick manufacturing activity. It

is also stated that, in terms of Ext.P12 judgment, the

petitioner is only liquidating the existing stock of clay and

that he will not manufacture once the available stock is

exhausted. It is stated that despite all this by Ext.P14, the

Village Officer has issued a prohibitory order requiring the

petitioner to discontinue the activities.

3. Government Pleader on instruction submits that the

petitioner is continuing manufacturing activities without

obtaining consent from the Pollution Control Board. Yet

another contention now raised by the Government Pleader

WP(c).No.5246/09 2

is that, whatever be the activities that are being carried on,

since the place of work of the petitioner is a paddy field, such

activity without obtaining necessary permit under the Kerala

Land Utilisation order is illegal.

4. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner asserts

that the petitioner has necessary consent issued by the

Pollution Control Board. He reiterates his plea that he has

already got a stock of clay and and that he only wants to

liquidate the stock by using the same for brick manufacturing.

It is stated that for liquidating the stock he need continue

manufacturing only for another three weeks and that

thereafter he will stop his brick manufacturing.

5. Taking into account the aforesaid submissions made

by both the parties, I feel that if the petitioner has an

available stock of clay which is already stored in the place of

manufacturing, he should be allowed to liquidate the stock.

Taking into account of the request of the petitioner that he

needs only 3 weeks to liquidate the existing stock of clay, the

WP(c).No.5246/09 3

writ petition disposed of as follows;

6. Petitioner shall produce before the 3rd respondent the

consent of the Pollution Control Board that he has. Once the

consent is produced before the 3rd respondent, it is directed

that Ext.P14 shall be kept in abeyance for 3 weeks from the

date of production of the consent and during that period it

will be open to the petitioner to continue brick

manufacturing and liquidate the existing stock.

Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before

the 3rd respondent for compliance.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/

WP(c).No.5246/09 4