WP(C) No. 6668 of 2021
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court
- Hon'ble Judges
- P. V. Kunhikrishnan
- Judgment Date
- 2021-09-13
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition disposed. The 2nd respondent is to consider the grievances after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the 3rd respondent, as expeditiously as possible but within three weeks from receipt of the judgment copy, and to prepare a proceedings after hearing and serve the same to the petitioners. All petitioners’ contentions are kept open for possible renewal before the 2nd respondent. The petitioners must furnish a copy of the judgment along with the writ petition before the 2nd respondent.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Sundara Rajan P.
- Rajesh T. Divakaran
- Mambra Rafeeque
Respondents
- The District Collector, Malappuram District
- The District Disaster Management Authority
- The Assistant Conservator of Forests, Social Forestry Division, Malappuram
- Malappuram Municipality
- The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Malappuram
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Daisy A. Philipose
- • Sri. Jai George
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. T. P. Sajan, SPL. GP
Case Synopsis & Summary
WP(C) No. 6668 of 2021 concerns a challenge to tree felling in the Malappuram Civil Station compound for construction of a warehouse and related development works. Petitioners Sundara Rajan P., Rajesh T. Divakaran, and Mambra Rafeeque aver that the indiscriminate cutting of healthy trees on government land is proceeding under the guise of development, jeopardizing ecology and risking landslides in the Cantonment Hill area, which sits near Kottakkunnu where a landslide occurred about two kilometers away. They demand a mandamus to restrain the respondents from further tree felling and to require planting an equal number of trees to compensate losses. They also seek directions to assess environmental impact before any new construction, ensure proper drainage ahead of the next rainy season, and conduct a census of trees within public lands in municipal limits. The respondents include the District Collector Malappuram, the District Disaster Management Authority, the Assistant Conservator of Forests (Social Forestry Division), Malappuram Municipality, and the Executive Engineer, PWD, who argue that the project involves only a warehouse on a small land parcel and that replacement trees will be planted at alternative sites. They assert precautions against landslides and say there has been no landslide within the Collectorate area. The court, after hearing both sides, disposed the petition by directing the 2nd respondent to consider the grievance after giving notice to the 3rd respondent and to proceed within three weeks, while leaving all petition contentions open.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners argue that healthy trees in the Malappuram Civil Station compound are being cut and removed indiscriminately to facilitate construction of a warehouse. They contend the Cantonment Hill crest near Kottakkunnu is prone to landslides, and the removal of trees threatens lives and ecological balance. They seek a writ of mandamus to stop further tree felling, to direct the respondents to plant an equal number of trees, to require an environmental impact assessment before any new construction, to ensure proper drainage ahead of the next rainy season, and to conduct a census of existing trees in public lands within municipal limits. They also request that all contentions be considered in an expeditious manner and that the 2nd respondent take remedial measures within a timeframe.
Contentions of Respondents
Respondents contend the project involves the construction of a warehouse on a small parcel of land and that any tree removal is temporary and will be compensated by planting an equal number of trees at alternate locations. They state the Social Forestry Division will undertake planting in the Collectorate compound in the coming planting season and that a tree committee will be convened; precautions will be taken to prevent landslides and there has been no landslide within the Collectorate area; they assert that the environmental risk is being addressed and that grievances can be considered by the 2nd respondent with notice to the 3rd respondent; they request dismissal of the petition or continued monitoring rather than sweeping injunction.
Diagnostic Tool
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 WP(C) No. 6668 of 2021 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.