IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 8643 of 2008(D)
1. V.JYOTHIKUMAR, NARIYIDA CHARUVILA VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.
... Respondent
2. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING
3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA.
4. SUBHADRA, D/O.BHARATHI,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.SATHEESH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :13/03/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 8643 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated: MARCH 13, 2008
JUDGMENT
In this writ petition, the substantial relief that the petitioner
seeks is a permission to use jack-hammer in quarrying operations.
2. It is seen that the 1st respondent in Ext.P8 has declined
permission to the petitioner for using jack-hammer. Subsequently
when the permit was renewed, there was no authorisation to use
jack-hammer. This issue is the subject matter of OS No.219/2007
pending before the Munsiff’s Court, Kottarakkara. In that suit the
petitioner filed IA.No.2727/07 for permission to use jack-hammer
and thereupon the court passed Ext.P9 order modifying its earlier
order prohibiting its use and directing that a study be conducted
into the feasibility of using jack-hammer. Even according to the
petitioner, the study is now going on. While so, this writ petition
has been filed praying for an order permitting the petitioner to use
jack-hammer.
3. From the above it is obvious that the matter is pending
WP(C) 8643/08
Page numbers
consideration of the civil court. Pursuant to Ext.P9 order, the civil
court has directed that a study be conducted into the feasibility of
such use of jack-hammer. At this stage when, pursuant to Ext.P9
order, a study is being conducted, this court will not be justified in
directing the authorities to permit the use of jack-hammer and
thus nullify the order that has been passed by the civil court. If at
all the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9 or he seeks a modification
of Ext.P9, it is for the petitioner to approach the civil court itself
than take resort to the writ jurisdiction of this court.
Writ petition fails and it is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
mt/-