T.Prasannakumari v. The Senior Geologist
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/29TH KARTHIKA, 1937 WP(C). No.23665 of 2006 (P) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------- T.PRASANNAKUMARI, NANDANAM, THEKKUMPURAM MURI, PUTHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, OFFICE OF THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA.
4. M.ALIYARUKUTTY, M.S.BHAVAN, VAKKANADU P.O., KAREEPRA VILLAGE, KOTTARALLARA.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI SOJAN JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C). No.23665 of 2006 (P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1:- COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 15.4.2004.
P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.
P3:- COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD.
P4:- COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-NIL KRJ //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.23665 of 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of November, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the owner in possession of 57 cents of property in Neduvathur village wherein she is carrying out agricultural operations. The petitioner alleges that the 4th respondent started quarrying operations in the Government puramboke land located on the immediate western side of her property. The petitioner further alleges that he has no licence or permit issued under the India Explosive Rules, 1983 and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. The first respondent who is the authorised officer has not issued any permit to carry out blasting operations; it is alleged.
2. The petitioner points out that now the illegal quarrying operation is being carried out indiscriminately without following the procedure established by law. The petitioner further points out that setting forth all the aspects, Ext.P2 has been filed before the
WP(C).23665/06 -:2:- respondents 1 and 2. However, no action has been taken in the matter. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
3. This Court by interim order dated 31.8.2006 directed the second respondent to look into the grievance raised by the petitioner in Ext.P2 and take appropriate action in accordance with, if they are found correct within one month.
As the very purpose sought to be achieved by filing of the writ petition has been served by the above interim order, the writ petition is closed making the interim order dated 31.8.06 absolute. Sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE krj