High Court of KeralaWP(C)/31116/2015disposed of

Sibi Thomas v. State Of Kerala

2015-10-13Honourable Mr. Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/21ST ASWINA, 1937 WP(C).No. 31116 of 2015 (L) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS :

-------------------

1. SIBI THOMAS, AGED 36 YEARS, KUNNATHU HUSE, MANKOMBU KARA, MOONNILAVU VILLAGE, MECHAL P.O., MEENACHIL THALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

2. JOSE VAZHAYIL S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, VELLAPPARA, MOONNILAVU VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS :

----------------------

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANTHAPURAM-695001.

2. STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, KERALA, PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANTHAPURAM - 695024.

3. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE O ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE, PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695024

4. M/S. P.V. GRANITES, MOONNILAVU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, JOSHY JOSHVA, P.V. GRANITES, MOONNILAVU P.O.

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 31116 of 2015 (L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

P1:

COPY OF ORDER DT 20/9/2012 OF THE DIRECTOR OF MINES SAFETY AUYTHORITY, BANGALORE.

P2:

COPY OF G.O. NO. 152/12/ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT DT 29/10/2012. P3:

COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS BEFORE THE R2.

P4:

COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :

NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE bp

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

------------------------------------------ W.P(C).No.31116 of 2015 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th October, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioners as against the proposed quarry by the fourth respondent.

This Court is of the view that the representation of the petitioners shall be considered by the second respondent before finalising all environmental clearance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE vgs13/10/15