High Court Kerala High Court

Suresh Babu.S. Aged 49 Years vs Piravom Grama Panchayat(Special … on 24 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
Suresh Babu.S. Aged 49 Years vs Piravom Grama Panchayat(Special … on 24 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 33107 of 2009(G)


1. SURESH BABU.S. AGED 49 YEARS
                      ...  Petitioner
2. K.P.RJAPPAN NAIR, AGE 53 YEARS
3. ANSAR.P.P., AGED 35 YEARS
4. BIJU.S., AGED 39 YEARS,
5. RAJU.P.V. AGED 40 YEARS
6. PURUSHOTHAMAN.K.K., AGED 55 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. PIRAVOM GRAMA PANCHAYAT(SPECIAL GRADE)
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY PIRVAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

3. GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND

                For Petitioner  :DR.VINCENT PANIKULANGARA

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :24/11/2009

 O R D E R
               THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                     --------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C) No.33107 OF 2009
                     --------------------------------------
             Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009

                            J U D G M E N T

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The 2nd respondent is the Secretary of the 1st respondent

Grama Panchayat. The 3rd respondent is the Geologist having

jurisdiction over the area in question.

2. The petitioners applied for grant or renewal of licence to

mine clay from paddy fields. They also say that clay, which was

mined out during the previous year, is left unutilised and is stored by

the petitioners in the locality. They need the permission of the

respondents 1 and 2 to put the stored materials to use in the

manufacture of bricks. They also need permits to resume mining of

clay.

3. Following the directions of this Court in Kairali Swayam

Sahaya Sangam v. State of Kerala [2009(2)KLT 181] and having

regard to the relevant provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and

different statutory provisions that govern the field of mining, the

W.P.(C) No.33107/2009 2

Panchayat has taken Ext.P33 decision, deciding to grant permit to 21

persons enumerated therein on terms fixed thereby and on the

condition that the permit will be issued when the appropriate

clearances of the Mining and Geology Department, Revenue

Department, Pollution Control Board etc. are produced.

4. Though the petitioners tried to state in the Writ Petition

that the 1st respondent informed the petitioners that they have to get

a no objection certificate from a Samithy, there is no such insistence

either in Ext.P33 or among the directions issued by this Court in the

aforesaid judgment.

5. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 state that

there is no requirement to obtain the NOC of any Samithy and that

licences will be issued in terms of Ext.P33 on production of

necessary documents in consonance with what is stated in the last

two paragraphs of Ext.P33. This submission is recorded and it is

ordered that the individual request of the petitioners will be

considered by the Panchayat Secretary on production of the

W.P.(C) No.33107/2009 3

appropriate documents in support of what is required in terms of the

last two paragraphs of Ext.P33 and if satisfied with such materials,

the Secretary shall issue the licences within a period of two weeks

therefrom.

6. The Panchayat Secretary will inspect any site where the

petitioners’ claim to have stored clay appropriately and if satisfied

that the clay is not mined recently, the Panchayat Secretary will

consider any application for issue of licence for utilising that clay for

the manufacture of bricks. However, the respondents 1 and 2 will

ensure strict vigil that under the guise of such licences there is no

further mining. Let that be done within a period of two weeks of any

among the petitioners pointing out any site by a written application to

respondents 2 and 3.

The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly.

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge
ps