IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
Senso V. Scaria, S/o. Scaria and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The Manjalloor Grama Panchayat, Manjalloor P.O., Muvattupuzha, Represented By Its Secretary and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) Nos.29170, 31320 & 32702 of 2022 and 25327 of 2023
Decided On : 27-08-2025
JUDGMENT :
W.P.(C)No.29170 of 2022
The above writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to see that the functioning of the quarry of the 3rd respondent is stopped forthwith. The petitioners have also sought to quash Ext.P9 to the extent it delegated the duty of maintenance of public road to the 3rd respondent.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by the pollution and nuisance caused due to the operation of a granite quarry, near to the residential houses, agricultural land and drinking water sources and also regarding the damage to the road, by the 3rd respondent. The grievance raised is that the local people are not in a position to live in their houses, continue agricultural operations and travel through the Panchayath road due to the functioning of the quarry run by the 3rd respondent. Complaints were filed as evident from Ext.P1. Alleging inaction, the petitioners have approached this Court filing W.P.(C)No.24930 of 2022, which was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P1 complaint preferred before the respondent Panchayat, in accordance with law. Pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment, Ext.P4 proceeding was issued by the 2nd respondent in the style of submitting a report before this Court. Later by Ext.P13, the respondent Panchayat issued a stop memo regarding the functioning of the quarry run by the 3rd respondent. In order to prove the damage caused to the house due to the functioning of the quarry run by the 3rd respondent and the pollution caused to the drinking water resources, Ext.P5 to P8 photographs were produced by the petitioners. The further grievance raised by the petitioners is that the public road is damaged due to the running of heavy vehicles to the quarry. When the matter came up for consideration on 06.09.2022 this Court has passed an interim order staying the operation of the quarry run by the 3rd respondent.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent, wherein it is stated that this Court as per Ext.P3 judgment, directed the respondent Panchayat to consider the request made by the petitioners and without even waiting for the time limit fixed in the said judgment to expire, they have rushed to this Court raising untenable contentions. It is further stated that as per Ext.R3(a) (Ext.P13 in the writ petition), a stop memo was issued by the 2nd respondent Panchayat. As regards the damage caused to the road, the 3rd respondent has expressed his willingness before the Panchayat to maintain the road and enquired that if the Panchayat is having any funding issue they could financially support, but the Panchayat did not take any decision and instead of maintaining the road, issued a stop memo prohibiting the 3rd respondent from plying the vehicle through the road and thus the 3rd respondent was constrained to approach this Court and as per Ext.R3(b) judgment the Court directed the respondent Panchayat to consider the request submitted by the 3rd respondent on his willingness to maintain the road and pursuant to the said direction, Ext.P9 order was issued, whereby the respondent Panchayat entrusted the 3rd respondent to maintain the road.
4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 essentially supporting the contentions raised by the petitioners. It is contended that the operation of the quarry is causing serious environmental issues and damage to the property of the nearby property owners and the public road is damaged and therefore, the public is finding it difficult to use the same.
5. The Pollution Control Board has filed a report dated 04.04.2023 stating that an inspection was conducted with experts from NIT K- Suratkal and in the inspection it was found that the nearest residence is about 250 metres from the blasting area. The inspection team also verified the crack developed in the nearby houses and the water tank. It is also reported that an Ambient Sound Monitoring was conducted and found
Environmental law requires a balance between local industrial operations and the protection of community health and safety, mandating strict compliance with regulatory standards.
Point of law : Environmental Clearance Certificates issued by DEIAA prior to judgment of National Green Tribunal order are valid as long as they are not subjected to successful challenge.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the potential impact of quarrying on the surrounding ecosystem and wildlife, as well as the existence of an alternate remedy under Rule 36-C. The de....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities followed due process and considered environmental impact and statutory requirements before granting permits and clearances for....
Panchayats cannot override clearances from specialised statutory bodies like SEIAA and Pollution Control Board on quarrying permits.
Quarry license - Powers, functions and the rights of Grama Sabha - beneficiary schemes and developmental programs, the Act, 1994 does not empower the Grama Sabhas to interfere with or dabble in the s....
The court established the application of the deeming provision for license renewal and clarified the legal requirements for renewal, addressing the interference by the Panchayat Committee and the nec....
The court upheld the Secretary's authority to grant building permits under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, emphasizing that government intervention and expert assessments are crucial for ensuring compl....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.