High Court Kerala High Court

Thomas Kunnel vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 April, 2009

Kerala High Court
Thomas Kunnel vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 April, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 5378 of 2007(M)



1. THOMAS KUNNEL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :08/04/2009

 O R D E R
                  P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
              ........................................................................
                     W.P.(C) No. 5378 OF 2007
              .........................................................................
                        Dated this the 8th April, 2009


                                  J U D G M E N T

The petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.

P3 Stop Memo issued by the second respondent-Village Officer,

restraining the petitioners from carrying out the quarrying

operation in the property being pursued on the basis of the

requisite licence/permit issued by the concerned authorities, as

borne by Exts. P1 and P2. The petitioners submit that the

activities being pursued by them are strictly in conformity with

the terms of the licence/permit and that the apprehension

expressed by the respondents No. 3 to 6 is quite wrong and

misconceived.

2. When the matter had come up for consideration before

this Court earlier, an interim order was passed on 19.02.2007

directing the Additional 7th respondent, viz., the Geologist to

conduct a site inspection and to file a report, which in turn has

been complied with by the said respondent. The report dated

W.P.(C) No. 5378 OF 2007

2

22.02.2007 shows that the work had to be stopped by the

parties for want of skilled labourers at different points of time

and that the quarrying permit was renewed only for a short

period which expired on 13.03.2007. It is also pointed out that

issuance of permit was quite valid and proper; that the inspection

revealed no irregularities in any manner and that no dwelling

house was noted within the radius of 50 metres from the

quarrying site . Based on the said report, Ext. P3 Stop Memo

issued by the second respondent was intercepted by this Court

staying the same as per the modified interim order dated

01.03.2007, directing the respondents No.1 and 2 and the

additional 7th respondent to ensure that the contents of the said

interim order and the undertaking given by the additional 7th

respondent vide its report dated 22.02.2007 are complied with,

simultaneously ensuring that the mining activities of the

petitioners would be confined and restricted to Ext.P2 site and

that it did not spread out to any other area.

In view of the factual position noted above, particularly in

view of expiry of the permit, nothing further remains to be

W.P.(C) No. 5378 OF 2007

3

adjudicated in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is

closed.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk