Tijo.K.George and Joshy Mathew v. District Collector, Malappparamba, Kozhikode; Koodaranhi Grama Panchayath, represented by its Secretary; The Secretary, Koodaranhi Grama Panchayath; Linej T.P.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.22078 OF 2019(H)** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 TIJO.K.GEORGE, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. K.C GEORGE, KONICKAL HOUSE, KOOMPARA P.O, MARANCHATTY, KOZHIKODE 673 604 PHONE 9744020468 2 JOSHY MATHEW, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, KUNNEL HOUSE, KOOMPARA P.O, MARANCHATTY, KOZHIKODE 673 604 PHONE 9544252282** **BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SRI.SABU PULLAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE 673 009 2 KOODARANHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KOODARANHI P.O, KOZHIKODE 673 604 3 THE SECRETARY, KOODARANHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH., KOODARANHI P.O, KOZHIKODE 673 604 4 LINEJ T.P, TANDALAPARAMBATH HOUSE, PILASSERY P.O, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE 673 571** WP(C).No.22078 OF 2019 -2- **R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SABU, SR.GP R2 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA R4 BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SR.) R4 BY ADV. SRI.LEO LUKOSE R4 BY ADV. SHRI.AMAL AMIR ALI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.22078 OF 2019 -3- ## **JUDGMENT** **Dated this the 19th day of November 2019** The petitioners have approached this Court impugning Ext.P5 decision taken by the 2[nd] respondent - Koodaranhi Grama Panchayat, authorising its Secretary to take a final decision with respect to the Trade Licence to be issued to the 4[th] respondent, to run the quarrying operations. 2. The petitioners say that the area in question is included in the "hazardous zone" and is prone to landslides; and therefore, that the impugned decision of the Panchayat is illegal and unlawful. They, therefore, pray that Ext.P5 be set aside. 3. In response, the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas instructed by Sri.Enoch David Simon Joel, learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent, submits that the allegations WP(C).No.22078 OF 2019 -4- of the petitioner are wholly untenable, since his client is operating the quarry on the strength of all necessary licences, clearances and permissions including the Environmental Clearance. He says that, in fact, the Secretary of the Panchayat has already issued a Trade Licence to his client, which is evident from Ext.R4(e) and that he is presently operating the quarry on its strength. The learned Senior Counsel then submitted very vehemently that unless the petitioners are able to successfully challenge the statutory licences and consents obtained by his clients, they cannot stand in the way of the Secretary of the Panchayat taking an appropriate decision going by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in _**Tommy Thomas v. State of Kerala**_ **[2019 (3) KLT 987].** The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed. 4. In fact, on hearing the submissions for the parties on the afore lines on an earlier WP(C).No.22078 OF 2019 -5- occasion, I had directed the District Collector to place on record his views as to whether the property in question is within the "hazardous zone" and whether, from the angle of the Disaster Management Act, quarrying activity can be permitted. The learned Government Pleader submits that an affidavit has been placed on record, styled as an additional affidavit, wherein the following have been stated. " The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala while passes its interim order dated 5.11.19 in WP(C) 22078/2019 filed by one Tijo K George directed me to examine the issues raised by the petitioner in the above writ petition particularly the contents of Exhibit P6, report of the Village Officer, Koodaranji and inform the Court, in the form of an affidavit, whether from the angle of the Disaster Management Act, the activity now being carried on by the 4th respondent can be continued. The District Geologist reported that the quarry is located in between North Latitude 11[0] 18 58 15' and 11[0] 19 03 43' and East Longitude 76[0] 03 59 49' and 76[0] 04 05 08'. This area is not belonging in the Hazard Zone WP(C).No.22078 OF 2019 -6- as per the DM plan of Kozhikode District and no landslide was reported in the area during the last monsoon period. It is submitted that there is no previous incidents of landslide, landslip or other similar disasters were happened in the place where the quarrying operation is going on. Hence in the angle of Disaster Management Act the quarrying operation can continue in the place at present where the 4[th] respondent operating the quarrying activities. It is also submitted that if the Hon'ble High Court suggest specific direction for a detailed study in this matter we will convene a technical expert committee for that, it will take time to complete the study and to obtain report in this regard." 5. Going by the afore statements in the additional affidavit of the District Collector, it is obvious that the apprehension of the petitioner, that operation of a quarry in the area concerned would cause land slides and such other natural disasters, is not supported by any cogent and reliable material. On the contrary, the District Collector has unequivocally averred WP(C).No.22078 OF 2019 -7- that, from the angle of the Disaster Management Act, he has no objection in the quarry being operated by the 4[th] respondent, provided it is done in terms of all applicable consents, permissions and licences. 6. Obviously therefore, the apprehensions of the petitioner can only be seen to be speculative in nature at this stage, though I do not find it to have been made with malice, but only on account of a genuine fear. 7. That said, since the District Collector has also averred that he will convene a Technical Expert Committee for a detailed study into the matter, if this Court no orders, I leave it open to the said Authority to do so if it is found necessary in future; but I do not think that this will be a reason enough to interdict the Trade Licence already issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat to the 4[th] respondent or to injunct their quarrying activities, particularly when the District Collector asserts that this WP(C).No.22078 OF 2019 -8- does not pose any danger from the angle of the Disaster Management Act. Resultantly, I close this writ petition leaving open all contentions of the petitioners to be raised by them appropriately if they intend to challenge any of the consents, licences and permissions obtained by the 4[th] respondent as they are entitled in law. ## **Sd/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **JUDGE** vv WP(C).No.22078 OF 2019 -9- ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. G. 2201/12 DATED 07-07-2012 GIVEN BY THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KOZHIKODE TO RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10-06-2016 FILED BY THE INHABITANTS** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23-01-2018 FIULED BY THE CONVENOR OF THE ACTION COMMITTEE TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23-01-2018** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 13-022019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT WHICH IS OBTAINED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT GIVEN BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOODARANHI TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 19-08-2019.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE CRACKS DEVELOPED IN ONE OF THE NEIGHBOURING BUILDING OWNED BY MR. JOSEPH.** - **EXHIBIT P8** **TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE CRACKS DEVELOPED IN ANOTHER NEIGHBOURING BUILDING OWNED BY MR. SEBASTIAN.** //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE