Sajeev K. George v State of Kerala and District Collector, Ernakulam

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1943 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 614 OF 2011 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SAJEEV K.GEORGE AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.K.K.GEORGE,, KALLARAKKAL HOUSE, CHUNDAKKUZHY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP SRI.SANEESH KUNJUKUNJU SRI.G.RAJAPPAN PILLAI SMT.SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM-682030. BY ADV.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **W.P.(C).No.614/2011** **2** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------W.P.(C).No.614 of 2011** ## **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of November, 2021** ## **`JUDGMENT`** This writ petition is filed with following prayers: - i. Issue a Writ of certiorari or order or direction, directing the 2[nd] respondent to produce all the records related to Ext.P1 and quash the same which affects this Petitioner. - ii. Issue a Writ of mandamus or order or direction, forbearing the Respondents or their minion from interfering in any manner with the legal operation of the quarry of the Petitioner. - iii. To pass appropriate Writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court finds necessary for the ends of justice and allow costs. 2. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 01.04.2011, a Division Bench of this Court passed a detailed order, which is extracted hereunder: - “These matters are listed for consideration of the interim order. 2. Both the Writ Petitions are filed challenging an order dated 18.11.2010 of the District Collector, Ernakulam. By the said order, it was directed that all **W.P.(C).No.614/2011** **3** the quarrying activities in Pattamala area of Kunnathunad Taluk, Ernakulam district be stopped"In the light of these observations and facts, it has been decided to stop all quarrying operations in Pattamala quarry including the below mentioned quarries, until further orders" and certain further directions to various officers of the State. 3. The preamble of the said order refers to an earlier public interest litigation of this Court, where directions were issued from time to time, in substance, to prevent illegal quarrying activities in the above mentioned area. It is in the backdrop of the above directions issued by this Court, the instant impugned proceedings came to be issued. It appears from the impugned order, pursuant to the earlier directions of this Court in the above mentioned W.P. (C).No.26906 of 2008, an inspection was conducted by the District Collector along with the Superintendent of Police, etc. In this regard, it is stated in the impugned order as follows: "It was against this backdrop, personal inspection of the District Collector, Ernakulam along with Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam (Rural), Aluva; the Deputy Director of Panchayath, Ernakulam; Senior Geologist, Ernakulam; Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha and other Revenue Officials having jurisdiction over the area have been conducted on 16.11.2010. At the time of site inspection, the excavation of rock have been found to have done without any **4** ## **W.P.(C).No.614/2011** regard to the safety parameters. No benching have been found to have been given while quarrying. Even the minimum required slop was not given while excavating rocks. It was noticed during the inspection that a road is passing on the top of the rocky hill. The passage through which has become very dangerous as steep ravens have been created on both sides due to reckless excavation of rock. Even a big hole with the diameter of about 20 meters have been formed within the rocky structure which support this rock. The Senior Geologist opined that the quarrying operations have been conducted in the most unscientific way which has adversely affected the topography of the area and the existence of other rocky structures also. The Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam (Rural) pointed out various safety issues. He opined that steep ravens and hill rocks poses a great danger not only to the quarry workers, but also to the lorry drivers operating in the quarry and to the people living in the vicinity of the area. The Taluk Surveyor pointed out that all survey demarcations have been lost due to extensive quarrying and at present there is no way to identify the boundaries of Government puramboke land and to distinguish puramboke and private land. He is of the opinion that the entire area needs to be surveyed and rock marks created to distinguish puramboke and private land". 4. In view of the above observed fact situation, **5** ## **W.P.(C).No.614/2011** the impugned order came to be issued as an interim measure, it is specifically stated in the impugned order as follows: "1. The Taluk Surveryor will conduct a survey of the properties, identify and demarcate Government land and private land in the Pattamala quarry area. After demarcating the Government land, necessary survey/rock mark will be provided separating Government land and private land. 2. District Geologist will ensure that the isolated rocky areas which are safety hazards will be identified and blasted at the expense of the quarry owners. He will also ensure that quarrying is done strictly in safe and scientific manner. 3. The Superintendent of Police Ernakulam Rural, Aluva shall take steps to ensure that there is no illegal quarrying in the area including in Government land. Necessary Police Pickets shall be provided for the time being for this purpose. 4 The Secretary, Mudakkuzha Grama Panchayath shall conduct frequent inspection to ensure that no illegal quarry is functioning. The Secretary shall file a report every month to the District Collector regarding these aspects. After proper survey of land and after ensuring safe and scientific quarrying is possible, a report shall be filed by the Taluk Surveyor and District Geologist to the District Collector. Thereafter, functioning of quarries can be permitted after obtaining all the necessary licences by the Quarry Owners". 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners **W.P.(C).No.614/2011** **6** Sri.K.Ramakumar and Sri Jayapradeep.V. agrued that no individual notices have been issued before the impugned order is passed, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and therefore the impugned order is required to be kept in abeyance. 6. We are unable to agree with the submissions for the following reasons: Admittedly the impugned order is issued without any prior notice to the writ petitioners. But the question is whether such requirement is an absolute requirement in law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that wherever there is large scale violation of law, it is impracticable to put the alleged violators of law on notice before some action is taken against them and particularly when the action is an interim measure (vide Biswa Ranjan Sahoo v. Sushanta Kumar Dinda [(1996) 5 SCC 365]). 7. It is obvious from the impugned-order that the direction to stop activities of the petitioners is only an interim measure and not a final order. Therefore, we do not propose to interfere with the impugned order by an interim direction. 8. However, the impugned order is an omnibus order. The cases of the individual quarry operators such as the petitioners, who claim that they have all the requisite permits/licences required under law for carrying quarrying operation and also allege that they are carrying on activities strictly in accordance with law, is required to be examined by some authority under law. **7** ## **W.P.(C).No.614/2011** 9. In view of the abovementioned earlier directions in W.P. (C).No.26906 of 2008, we deem it appropriate to direct the District Collector, Ernakulam to examine the individual cases of the petitioners in the abovementioned two Writ Petitions and take appropriate action within one month from today.” 3. Thereafter the matter again came up on 24.05.2011. On that day, this Court passed the following order: “When the matter is taken up today, the learned Government Pleader submitted that pursuant to the earlier order dated 01.04.2011, the individual cases of these petitioners are being examined, the parties are already heard and a final decision is likely to be taken in the near future. The learned Government Pleader therefore prays that the matter be adjourned by 10 days. Post the matters after 10 days.” 4. The above interim orders were passed in two writ petitions as a common order [W.P.(C). Nos.37964/2010 & 614/2011]. W.P.(C). No.37964 of 2010 is already dismissed. 5. I perused the above interim order passed in this case. In the interim order it is clearly stated that the District Collector, Ernakulam will examine the individual cases of the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law. The consequential order passed by the District Collector as **8** ## **W.P.(C).No.614/2011** directed by this Court is not available now. I am of the view that this writ petition can be closed in the light of those interim orders. Therefore, this writ petition is closed recording the interim orders dated 01.04.2011 and 24.05.2011. It is made clear that if there is any fresh cause of action to the petitioner, the petitioner is free to approach this Court or any other authorities, in accordance to aw. sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** JV **W.P.(C).No.614/2011** **9** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 614/2011`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.11.10 OF R2 EXHIBIT P2COPY OF THEREPORT DATED 31.8.10 OF R2 EXHIBIT P3COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF LICENCE & LOCATION MAP ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4COPY OF GO(MS) 239/10 DATED 1.12.10 EXHIBIT P5COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 1.12.10 EXHIBIT P6COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 18.11.93 EXHIBIT P7COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT DATED 14.12.2010 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P8COPY OF HTE ORDER OF HTE DB OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 18.11.2010 EXHIBIT P10PHOTOGRAPH OF THE QUARRY OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P11DIAGRAM SHOWING HTE ELEVATION OF THE QUARRY DRAWN BY QUALIFIED ENGINEER, SRI. SUBASH PK ``` ``` RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A1COPY OF HTE JOINT INSPECTION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT ```