Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4126
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
V Y JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 21119/2012
A quarry must operate strictly within the limits of its permits to prevent harm to surrounding properties.
Headnote:
Quarrying - Indiscriminate Quarrying Near Residential Area - Quarrying Permits and Licenses - Court mandates inspection of quarrying activities to ensure compliance with licensing requirements.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner complains about the indiscriminate quarrying by the sixth respondent near their residence, alleging damage to their property and lack of necessary licenses for the operation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sixth respondent has the required quarrying permits and licenses but recorded a commitment to confine activities to permitted areas. An inspection was ordered to verify compliance.
Issues: Whether the sixth respondent is conducting quarrying within the permitted limits and holds the necessary licenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for compliance with licensing and permits for quarrying, ensuring that activities do not adversely affect nearby residential properties.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions for inspection of quarrying activities.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner's grievance is one regarding the indiscriminate quarrying undertaken by the sixth respondent very near to the residential house of the petitioner. It is alleged that the indiscriminate blasting has caused damage to the petitioner's dwelling house. One of the allegations raised in para 2 of the writ petition is that the sixth respondent has not obtained necessary licence from respondents 2 and 3. Ext.P2 is the copy of the complaint submitted by the petitioner before the first respondent.
2. The sixth respondent has filed a counter affidavit producing Exts.R6(a) to R6(d). Ext.R6(a) is the copy of the quarrying permit with respect to the property in Sy. No.736/P of Madakkathara Village and the extent shown is 0.1497 hectares, Ext.R6(b) is the consent to operate issued by the Pollution Control Board which is valid upto 31.12.2014. Ext.R6(c) is the true copy of Form LE-3 licence dated 16.4.2012 which is valid upto 31.3.2014. The Panchayat issued a licence for running the quarry which is valid upto 3.7.2013, a copy of which is produced as Ext.R6 (d). Therefore, learned counsel for the sixth respondent submits that the W.P.(C).No.21119/2012 allegation that the sixth respondent is not having permit and other licences, is not correct.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sixth respondent is now conducting quarries in the areas which are not permitted as per Ext.R6(a).
4. Learned counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that the sixth respondent will confine the quarrying activity strictly to the area covered by Ext.R6(a) permit. The said submission is recorded.
5. To find out whether any quarrying activity is being done beyond the limits provided in Ext.R6(a), the third respondent will conduct an inspection and satisfy himself about the quarrying operations of the sixth respondent. He will ascertain whether he is confining the quarrying activity strictly within the limits provided in Ext.R6(a) permit.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE kav/
