P.K. Devaki and P.K. Gopalan v. District Collector, Kottayam and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13686 of 2010(I) ------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. P.K.DEVAKI, AGED 62 YEARS, PATTUVELIL HOUSE, CHAMBAKKARA P.O., THOTTAKKAD, KARUKACHAL VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT KOZHIMALA HOUSE, PUTHUPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM THALUK. 2. P.K.GOPALAN, PATTUVELIL HOUSE, CHAMBAKKARA P.O., THOTTAKKAD, KARUKACHAL VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMOD RESPONDENTS: - ----------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KOTTAYAM. 6. THE SECRETARY, KARUKACHAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. WP(C) NO.13686 OF 2010 - 2 - 7. P.A.ABRAHAM, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, CHAMBAKKARA P.O., KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY FOR R6 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R7 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R7 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R7 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R7 SRI.P.GOPINATH FOR R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## W.P.(C) NO.13686 OF 2010 ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: - EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17/6/2009 - EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KOTTAYAM DATED 17/9/2009 - EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 1.12.2009 - EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1/12/2009 - EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.16/2010 - EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM INJUNCTION ORDER IN IA NO.66/2010 IN OS NO.16/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANASSERY - EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER - EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROSECUTION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS - EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT - EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTADTION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT - EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C. NO.37208/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: - EXT.R7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE TOWN PLANNER, KOTTAYAM DATED 15.5.2009 - EXT.R7(B) TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE KARUKACHAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 11.10.2009 - EXT.R7(C) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 17.6.2009 - EXT.R7(D)TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 17.9.2009 OF THE GEOLOGIST DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KOTTAYAM - EXT.R7(E) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 16.4.2010 OF THE GEOLOGIST DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KOTTAYAM / TRUE COPY / ## **P.N. RAVINDRAN** , **J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 13686 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23[rd] day of June, 2010 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners who are sister and brother respectively, have filed this writ petition mainly challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the Geologist, District Office, Department of Mining and Geology, Kottayam granting permission to the seventh respondent to excavate rock from the lands described therein and Ext.P2 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam permitting the seventh respondent to level a parcel of land belonging to him, subject to the conditions specified therein. The petitioners have also prayed for various other reliefs. 2. Ext.P1 order is an order passed by the Geologist under the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 and Ext.P2 is an order issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam under Rule 57 of the said rules. Rule 49 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules entitles the petitioners to file an appeal challenging Exts.P1 and P2 orders before the appellate authority appointed by the State Government. They also have W.P.(C)No. 13686 OF 2010 ## -:2:- the right to file a second appeal before the final appellate authority appointed by the State Government. The petitioners thus have an effective, meaningful and alternative remedy by way of appeal and second appeal before the appellate and final appellate authority. A Division Bench of this Court has in **Biju Chacko & others v. The Deputy Director, Mining & Geology** [2006(1) KLJ 401] held that a party complaining of the order passed under the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 should invoke the appellate remedy available to him instead of invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Further the petitioners have also instituted a suit, OS No. 16 of 2010 in the Court of Munsiff, Changanassery, alleging that as a result of the quarrying activities being carried on by the seventh respondent, the lateral support to their lands has been lost. Ext.P5 is a copy of the plaint in OS No.16 of 2010. In that suit the petitioners have prayed for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the seventh respondent herein, the sole defendant in that suit, from conducting quarrying activities in his W.P.(C)No. 13686 OF 2010 ## -:3:- lands. It is also not in dispute that in that suit, on the application filed by the petitioners, the Court of Munsiff has passed an ad interim order of injunction on 14.01.2010 in terms of the relief of injunction prayed for in the plaint. 4. A Full Bench of this Court has in **Reena v. Geena** [2010 (2) KLT 155] held that a person should not be permitted to prosecute parallel remedies. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in **Jai Singh v. Union of India** [AIR 1977 SC 898]. Aggrieved by the quarrying activities conducted by the seventh respondent herein, the petitioners have moved the civil court and the civil court has passed an ad interim order of injunction. The civil court is competent to issue appropriate orders safeguarding the rights of the petitioners. If the petitioners have a case that the interim order of injunction passed by the civil court has been violated and the seventh respondent is carrying on the quarrying operations in violation of the interim order passed by the civil court, the petitioners can move the civil court, seeking appropriate reliefs. The petitioners can also move the civil court for further ad interim orders. W.P.(C)No. 13686 OF 2010 -:4:- In such circumstances, having regard to the fact that Exts.P1 and P2 orders are appealable orders and further the fact that the petitioners have already moved the civil court seeking redressal of their grievances, I am of the considered opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition. The remedy of the petitioners is, in my opinion, to challenge Exts.P1 and P2 orders by filing appeal or to seek further orders from the civil court. Without prejudice to that right and leaving open the contentions of both sides, this Writ Petition is dismissed. **P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.** ttb W.P.(C)No. 13686 OF 2010 -:5:-