W.P.(C) Nos. 11102 of 2011 & 11557 of 2011

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH** **MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/26TH POUSHA 1933** ## **WPC.No. 11102 of 2011 (K)** **-------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **-------------** **JOSHY P.K., S/O.KURIAN, AGED 40 YEARS, PUNNACKAKUZHIYIL, IRUMPANAM P.O., THALAYOLAPARAMBU KOTTAYAM 686 605.** **BY ADV. SRI.A.J.VARGHESE** **RESPONDENTS:** - **-----------------------** **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686001** **2. VELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VELLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM PIN-686609.** **3. THE S.I. OF POLICE, VELLOOR POLICE STATION,VELLOOR, NEAR HINDUSTHAN NEWSPRINT LTD KOTTAYA-686609.** **4. GEORGE MATHEW, MAYAMPARAMBIL, MAYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, THALAYOLAPARAMBU JN THALAYOLAPARAMBU(MIDAYIKUNNU), KOTTAYAM-686605.** **5. VINCENT JOSEPH, PUTHEN MANAYIL HOUSE, IRUMPAYAM, PIN-686 605.** **R,R2 BY SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.) R,R2 BY SRI.P.GOPAL R,R4 & 5 BY SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN R,ADDL.R6 BY SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ROSE MICHAEL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-01-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. 11557/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WPC.No. 11102 of 2011 (K)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS** - **P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15-11-2010 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS** - **P2 COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 23-11-2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLOOR** - **P3 COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 23-11-2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLOOR** - **P4 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLOOR DATED 24-11-2010** - **P5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-1-2011 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.C. NO. 1368/2011** - **P6 COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7-1-2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT'S** - **P7 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS TO THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 31-3-2011** - **P8 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY IST RESPONDENT DATED 29-3-2011** - **P9 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 1-11-2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **P10 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER SHOWING THE DANGEROUS SITUATION OF THE QUARRY** - **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL** ## **TRUE COPY** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **SMM** ## **V.CHITAMBARESH,J.** = = = = = = = = = = **W.P.(C) NO.11102 OF 2011** **&** ## **W.P.(C) NO. 11557 OF 2011** = = = = = = = == = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of January, 2012 ## J U D G M E N T WP(C) Nos. 11102 of 2011 and 11557 of 2011 are connected and relate to the same quarry. 2. This Honourable Court by interim order dated 01/06/2011 in W.P.(C) No.11557 of 2011 restrained further quarrying operations on the ground that the Panchayath has not issued any licence. It is now brought to my notice that Exts.R7(i) and R7(j) are the licences issued to the seventh and eighth respondent to function the quarry. The seventh and eighth respondent also rely on the explosive licences, quarrying permits issued by Geologist, consent letters from Pollution Control Board, blasters licences etc, for the entitlement to conduct the quarry. 3. The counsel for the Panchayath submits that a **W.P.(C) NO.11102 OF 2011 &** **W.P.(C) NO. 11557 OF 2011** 2 Sub Committee was constituted on the basis of Ext.P1 report of its Secretary after receiving complaints from various persons. Ext.R2 (b) is the report of the Sub Committee and Ext.R2 (c) is the resolution of the Panchayath deciding to issue licences to the seventh and eighth respondent. Exts. P1, R2(b) and R2(c) are produced in W.P.(C) No.11102 of 2011. Exts. R7 (i) and R7(j) are the licences issued by the Panchayath accordingly to conduct the quarrying operations . 4. The petitioners are free to invoke the statutory remedy available under Section 276 (5) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. In other words, the decision of the Panchayath as well as the licences granted to conduct the quarrying operations can be challenged in appeal to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. I therefore refrain from deciding the correctness or otherwise of Exts. R7 (i) and R 7(j) licences issued by the Panchayath. 5. Yet another grievance relates to the depth of the **W.P.(C) NO.11102 OF 2011 & W.P.(C) NO. 11557 OF 2011** 3 quarry being conducted by the seventh and eighth respondent. This honourable court by judgment in **Gokuldas vs. Geologist ((2009) 3 KLT 924)** held as follows. 'Therefore, I direct all the Geologists in the State that quarrying permits issued under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules shall contain a condition restricting the depth of the pit to be used for quarrying below the surface to 20 feet and the additional 3[rd] respondent shall issue appropriate instructions to all Geologists in the State accordingly.” This principle has been extended to quarrying operations of granite as well by the judgment dated 17/2/2010 in WP(C) No.6485/2009. The petitioners are free to bring to the notice of the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer in case the seventh and eighth respondent indulge in quarrying operations below 20 feet from the surface which is expressly prohibited. 6. Ext.R2 (b) report of the Sub Committee reflects that the house of the petitioners are situated beyond 300 m from the quarry. The petitioners on the other hand contend that **W.P.(C) NO.11102 OF 2011 & W.P.(C) NO. 11557 OF 2011** 4 the quarry is situated within the prohibited distance of 100 m. This question can also be raised in the appeal, if any, filed before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions against Ext.R7(i) and R7(g) licences. Needless to say that the interim order of stoppage of the quarry aforestated stands vacated by this judgment. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE smm **W.P.(C) NO.11102 OF 2011 &** **W.P.(C) NO. 11557 OF 2011** 5 **W.P.(C) NO.11102 OF 2011 &** **W.P.(C) NO. 11557 OF 2011** 6