Writ Petition (Civil) No. 33963 of 2019 (U)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Amit Rawal
- Judgment Date
- 2020-01-09
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ petition is allowed. Ext.P21 interim order is set aside. The Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (Tribunal) is directed to decide Appeal No.680 of 2019 as expeditiously as possible, within two months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order, and to proceed with the interim directions already granted on 4.11.2019. The Tribunal may pass adverse orders if it finds that the appellant adopts any dilatory tactics. The Court records the Tribunal’s current incapacity (heading by a District Judge) and directs that alternative arrangements be sought, with the Registry to notify the Government for necessary administrative steps to ensure functioning. Interim directions shall continue.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition allowed; Ext.P21 set aside; Tribunal directed to decide Appeal No.680 of 2019 within two months; interim directions to continue; note on Tribunal capacity and need for alternative arrangements.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Viju M. Ittoop
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
- Director of Mining and Geology, Directorate of Mining and Geology, Thiruvananthapuram
- The Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, Ernakulam
- Poothrikka Grama Panchayat, Ernakulam
- T.P.Chacko
- T.V.Joy
- Vinod.T.R
- N.N.Rajan, Block Panchayat Member, Poothrikka Grama Panchayat
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. Santhosh Mathew
- • Sri. Arun Thomas
- • Sri. Jennis Stephen
- • Sri. Vijay V. Paul
- • Smt. Karthika Maria
- • Smt. Veena Raveendran
- • Sri. Anil Sebastian Pulickel
- • Smt. Divya Sara George
- • Smt. Jaisy Elza Joe
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. Sahee V. Kumar?
- • Sri. Nandagopal S. Kurup
- • Sri. Paul Abraham Vakkanal, GP
- • Sri. S. Kannan, GP
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition challenges Ext.P21 interim order dated 2.12.2019 passed in I.A.1469/19 in Appeal No.680 of 2019, arising from an order issued by the fourth respondent, the Secretary of Poothrikka Grama Panchayat. The core legal issue, framed under Section 276 of the Panchayat Raj Act, is whether the holder of a quarry licence is required to obtain environmental clearance for an existing lease as of 18.05.2012. The petitioner’s lease (Ext.P2) is valid through 21.11.2020, with other permissions in place: mining plan (Ext.P3), consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board (Ext.P4, 14.11.2018; valid to 20.11.2020), an explosives licence (Ext.P5, 22.04.2019; valid to 31.03.2022), and a movement permit (Ext.P6, 02.05.2019). Despite compliance, the Assistant Geologist’s memo led to Ext.P5, later set aside, with Director of Mining and Geology communications (Exts.P10–P11) permitting continued operation on deposit. The Panchayat issued Ext.P15 stop memo on 25.09.2019, prompting petitions in this Court and related suits, including an order in O.S.No.53/2019. The Court notes the Tribunal’s workload and that the interim order should not have been based on a nine-page adjudication. It sets aside Ext.P21, and directs the Tribunal to decide Appeal No.680 of 2019 expeditiously, within two months, with interim directions continuing, while cautioning against dilatory tactics. The petition seeks to safeguard legal rights and ensure orderly resolution of the environmental clearance question within the existing framework.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that the key issue before the Tribunal is whether environmental clearance is required for an existing quarry lease as of 18.05.2012, given Ext.P2 (lease) valid through 21.11.2020 and multiple permissions (Exts.P3–P6). Reliance is placed on decisions such as All Kerala River Protection Council’s decisions, and the Director of Mining and Geology’s reports (Exts.P10–P11) indicating permissible continuation subject to deposit. The Petitioner argues that the stop memo (Ext.P15) by Poothrikka Grama Panchayat curtailed operations, necessitating Tribunal adjudication rather than extended writ scrutiny. The relief sought includes setting aside Ext.P21 and directing expeditious disposal of Appeal No.680/2019, with preservation of interim stay as already granted, to avoid multiplicity and prejudice while preserving environmental compliance and mining rights under law.
Contentions of Respondents
Respondents argue that the environmental clearance issue is intertwined with multiple permissions and pending challenges, including writ petitions and civil suits; the Panchayat and Government Pleader emphasize adherence to legal process, the need to resolve the legality of the mining plan and stop memos through the Tribunal, and caution against undue interference with the Tribunal’s proceedings. They contend that interim stay and decisions must be evaluated within the Tribunal framework and that Director of Mining and Geology reports and extant permissions require careful consideration; the court should not prematurely determine merits and should respect the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes under the Panchayat Raj Act.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| All Kerala River Protection Council, Aluva v. State of Kerala and Others | 2015 (2) KHC 359 | Mentioned Only | Cited to contextualize the environmental clearance issue for existing leases; not treated as a binding precedent in the present decision. |
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 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 33963 of 2019 (U) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.