High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed with directions as state...

S. AYYA PILLAI and THANKAMMAL P. v. KUTTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH and others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C).No. 7706 OF 2008

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
Judgment Date
2008-03-06
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition disposed; second respondent directed to take up Ext.P2, issue notices to respondents 4–7 and petitioners, hear them, and decide Ext.P2; third respondent to personally inspect and conduct a hearing on Ext.P3 with notice to petitioners and respondents; action to be completed within six weeks; guidance from Thilakan v. Circle Inspector of Police cited for guidance.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed with directions as stated above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • S.AYYA PILLAI
  • THANKAMMAL P.

Respondents

  • THE KUTTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
  • SECRETARY, KUTTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
  • REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA
  • MADHAVAN, S/O.NEELAKANDAN
  • SUKUMARA PILLAI
  • SABU PHILIP
  • MINIMOL PHILIP

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri.S.Subhash Chand

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Govt. Pleader Sri.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioners are residents of 37 cents of land in Survey Nos. 536/17 and 524/10A of Kuttoor Village, Thiruvalla Taluk. They allege that Respondents 4 to 7, who own larger tracts on the banks of the Varattar, are indiscriminately excavating and removing earth and sand from their properties. The petition asserts that this sand mining is causing environmental degeneration and upsetting the ecological balance of the area, and that the activities are carried on without any licence from the local authority. The petitioners further contend that, although these illegal operations were brought to the notice of authorities, no action has been taken, allegedly due to the clout and influence of Respondents 4 to 7. They pray for mandamus or other appropriate writs to compel Respondents 1–3 to take adequate and effective measures to prevent the illegal activity, and to consider and decide Ext. P2 and Ext. P3 representations after hearing with notice to petitioners and Respondents 4–7; they also invoke the Polluter Pays principle to restore ecological equilibrium. The court notes that Ext. P2 and P3 are pending before the Secretary of the Panchayath and the RDO, respectively. After hearing counsel, the judge holds that it is for those authorities to consider Exts. P2 and P3 and take appropriate action. The writ petition is disposed with directions that the Second Respondent act on Ext.P2 within six weeks and that the Third Respondent inspect and hear Ext.P3, with hearings and notices.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Polluter Pays

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that respondents 4–7 are illegally excavating earth and sand along the Varattar river, on large properties, without licence, causing environmental degradation and disturbing ecological equilibrium. They claim authorities have failed to act due to influence; they seek mandamus to require action, and to decide Exts. P2 and P3 after notice and hearing, invoking the Polluter Pays principle to restore ecological balance.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that Exts. P2 and P3 are pending before the Panchayat Secretary and the Revenue Divisional Officer, and that it is for those authorities to consider and take appropriate action after due hearing; the court should allow the authorities to decide in light of the representations.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Thilakan v. Circle Inspector of Police2008(1)KLT 141Mentioned OnlyCited to guide observations and directions; not treated as binding authority in this instance.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against S. AYYA PILLAI and THANKAMMAL P. v. KUTTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE** **THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929** **WP(C).No. 7706 of 2008(P)** **-------------------------** **PETITIONER:** - **------------** **1. S.AYYA PILLAI, S/O.SANKU PILLAI, CHAKARAPANAYIL (CHAKRAPANIYIL), THENGELI P.O., KUTTOOR, THIRUVALLA.** **2. THANKAMMAL P., W/O.S.AYYA PILLAI, CHAKARAPANAYIL (CHAKRAPANIYIL), THENGELI P.O., KUTTOOR, THIRUVALLA.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND** **RESPONDENTS:** - **-------------** **1. THE KUTTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE KUTTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUTTOOR, THIRUVALLA.** **2. SECRETARY, KUTTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE KUTTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUTTOOR, THIRUVALLA.** **3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA.** **4. MADHAVAN, S/O.NEELAKANDAN, PANACHITHARA VEEDU, THENGELI P.O KUTTOOR, THIRUVALLA.** **5. SUKUMARA PILLAI, S/O.KOCHUKUNJU PILLAI KOZHIYAPUNCHAYIL, THENGELI P.O., KUTTOOR, THIRUVALLA.** **6. SABU PHILIP, S/O.PHILIPOSE, KANNATTIPUZHAYIL, THENGELI P.O., KUTTOOR, THIRUVALLA.** **7. MINIMOL PHILIP, W/O.SABU PHILIP,** **KANNATTIPUZHAYIL, THENGELI P.O. KUTTOOR, THIRUVALLA.** **BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(c).No. 7706 OF 2008** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6[th] day of March, 2008 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioners are residents of 37 cents of property comprised in Survery Nos. 536/17 and 524/10 A of Kuttoor Village in Thiruvalla Taluk. Their grievance is that respondents 4 to7 who are having more than 1 acre of property on the banks of Varattar, a dying river, are indiscriminately excavating and removing earth and sand from their properties. According to them, the activity of respondents 4 to 7 is causing environmental degeneration in the locality and interferes with the ecological equilibrium. It is also alleged that it is without any licence from the local authority that respondents 4 to 7 are indulging in these activities and that even though these illegal activities of respondents were brought to the notice of the authorities, no action is so far taken on account of the clout and influence of respondents 4 to 7 with the higher ups. On these allegations, petitioners pray for the following reliefs: WPC.No.7706/08 2 “i). To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or order directing respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to take adequate and effective measures so as to prevent the illegal, unauthorised and impermissible conduct of sand mining operations and excavation of earth from the properties belonging to respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 in Survey No.111/6 of Kuttoor Village and other properties adjacent to the property of the petitioners situated in old survey Nos. 536/17 and 524/10A of Kuttoor village in Thiruvalla Taluk within such time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider and pass final orders on Ext.P2 representation with notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within WPC.No.7706/08 3 such time as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice; iii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing respondent No.3 to consider and pass final orders on Ext.P3 representation with notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within such time as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice; IV) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing respondent No.3 to take effective and immediate action against respondent Nos.4,5,6 and 7 restoring the ecological equilibrium in the locality invoking the principle of “Polluter Pays” within such time as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. I have heard the submissions of Sri.Subhash Chand, WPC.No.7706/08 4 counsel for the petitioner. I am of the view that since Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioner before the Secretary of the Panchayat and Ext.P3 submitted before the third respondent RDO are pending before those respective authorities, it is for those authorities to consider Exts.P2 and P3 and take appropriate action. 3. Under these circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition itself in the following terms: The second respondent is directed to take up Ext.P2 immediately, issue notice to respondents 4 to 7, hear them as well as the petitioners and take a correct and just decision on Ext.P2 in the light of the various grounds raised in the writ petition Similarly, the third respondent shall personally conduct local inspection of the areas wherefrom respondents 4 to 7 are excavating earth/sand. Thereafter 2[nd] respondent shall conduct a hearing on Ext.P3 with notice to the petitioners and respondents 4 to 7 and take appropriate action as is warranted by his own impressions in the local inspection and the arguments advanced by the parties during hearing. Needful will be done by respondents 2 WPC.No.7706/08 5 and 3 with regard to Ext.P2 and P3 respectively at the earliest and at any rate within six weeks of receiving copy of this judgment. Petitioners are permitted to place a copy of the judgment of this court in Thilakan v. Circle Inspector of Police (2008(1)KLT 141) and respondents 2 and 3 will have due regard to the observations and directions contained therein while taking decisions. **PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE** sv. WPC.No.7706/08 6