High Court of KeralaWP(C)/24707/2008dismissed as infructuous

Sri.E.V.Joseph v. State Of Kerala

2015-08-12Honourable Mr.Justice A.M.Shaffique,Honourable The Chief Justice Mr.Ashok Bhushan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/21ST SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 24707 of 2008 (N) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :- -----------------

1. SRI.E.V.JOSEPH, ENCHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOODALLOOR P.O., NOW RESIDING AT THEKKUMBHAGAM TRIPUNITHURA.

2. SMT.ROSAKUTTY THOMAS, ENCHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOODALLOOR P.O.

BY ADVS.SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE SRI.P.K.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S) :- ------------------

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM.

3. THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, (P.C.B) KOTTAYAM.

4. KIDANGOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KIDANGOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST.

5. SRI.VINOD JAMES, VALLITHOTTATHIL, PROPRIETOR, VIVEK INDUSTRIES, KOODALLOOR P.O. KOTTAYAM DIST.

6. SRI.BINU ALEXANDER CHETHIYATH HOUSE, KOODALLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM.

7. SRI.REJI JAMES, VALLITHOTTATHIL HOUSE, KOODALLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST.

R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS, SC, POLL.C.BOAR R5 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

---------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.24707 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August 2015

J U D G M E N T

Shaffique, J.

This writ petition is filed challenging the operation of quarry by respondents 5 to 7 inter alia contending that the quarry causes pollution to the neighbouring locality. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 7 that the quarry had been in operation for the last several years and that the wife of the first petitioner had filed another writ petition challenging the functioning of the quarry, which is pending consideration. 2.

Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, we do not think it necessary to consider this writ petition on merits as the cause of action, which has been narrated in the writ petition does not survive.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE J UDGE Jvt