G.Asokan v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/9TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 32718 of 2014 (L) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:
------------------ G.ASOKAN, AGED 63 YEARS NIKHIL BHAVAN, MANALI, MOONGODU PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADVS.SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.K.M.ABDUL MAJEED SRI.B.BALAPRASANNAN SRI.N.MUHAMMAD SAJU SRI.UDAYAKUMAR SREEDHARAN SMT.RESHMA ABDUL RASHEED RESPONDENTS:
----------------------
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043.
2. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPT.OF MINING AND GEOLOGY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004
3. KATTAKKADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KATAKKADA PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 572.
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VILAPPILSALA POLICE STATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 573.
5. JAYAKUMAR, BATHEL BHAVAN, MANALI, MOOMNGODU PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 144 Addl.6. JAYAKUMAR, AGED 40, S/O.MANIYAN, INDIRA BHAVAN, PALOTTU VILLA, MALAYINKEEZHU PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 571, IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.12.2014 IN IA.17497/2014.
RADDL. 6 BY ADV. SRI.A.S.SHAMMY RAJ R5 BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP R3 BY ADV. SMT.P.S.ANJU R1,2 & 4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 32718 of 2014 (L) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
---------------------------------- EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.4797/2012 IN OS NO.916/2012 BEFORE THE MINSIFF COURT,NEDUMANGADU DATED 26/6/2013. EXT. P2 : COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.542/2011 OF VILAPPILSALA POLICE STATION DATED 27/9/2011.
EXT. P3 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXT. P4 : COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 27/5/2014. EXT. P5 : COPY OF THE FIR WITH THE FIS IN THE CRIME NO.548/2014. EXT. P6 : COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DT. NIL. EXT. P7 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.28/5/2014. EXT. P8 : C0PY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT.9/6/2014. EXT. P9 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.9/6/2014. EXT. P10: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED NIL.
EXT. P11: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DT.19/11/2014. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------------------------- // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE dl/
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.32718 of 2014 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March 2015
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P4, P6 and P7 stop memos and for a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to grant permission to the petitioner to start functioning of the quarry.
2.
It is now brought to the notice of this Court that the permits granted in favour of the petitioner has already been expired on 24/02/2015 and according to the petitioner, renewal application has already been submitted before the competent authorities.
3.
In so far as the permit has already been expired, petitioner can operate the unit only after getting necessary permission/renewal in this regard.
In the said circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in quashing Exts.P4, P6 and P7 stop memos. If the competent authorities are satisfied that the functioning of the quarry is not illegal and is in accordance with the procedure
prescribed, it shall always be open for the petitioner to approach the authorities and seek for renewal of the same. 4.
The learned counsel for the 6th respondent submits that since the property in which the quarry is being conducted is having an area more than five hectares, the petitioner requires to obtain necessary environmental clearance, as envisaged under the notification issued under the Environmental Protection Act.
5.
These are all matters which have to be considered by the concerned authorities while considering the application of the petitioner for renewal of the licence/permission. Under such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in adjudicating the issues projected by the petitioner.
Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr