Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 47559
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J
MOOCHAMKUNDU POURA SAMITHI – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR Advocate - STATE ATTORNEY, STATE ATTORNEY,DEEPU LAL MOHAN,GOVERNMENT PLEADER,N JAMES KOSHY,MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 3934/2014
Quarrying operations must comply with requisite environmental permits and licenses; illegal activities may be challenged by affected parties.
Headnote:
Quarrying - Petition for Writ - Act Section List - The court addressed the illegal quarrying activities and emphasized compliance with necessary permits, highlighting the legal requirement for environmental clearance and governmental oversight.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner represents local residents opposing illegal quarrying by the 8th respondent, who allegedly lacks necessary permits. Another petitioner seeks to cancel the quarrying permit issued to the 3rd respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the quarry owner's commitment to obtain necessary clearance. It permitted the petitioners to challenge any operations without a license and instructed authorities to act against illegal activities.
Issues: Whether the quarrying activities being conducted by the 8th respondent were lawful and compliant with the requisite permits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized adherence to statutory requirements for quarrying activities, affirming the importance of obtaining necessary licenses to prevent illegal operations.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of with directions regarding permits and compliance.
J U D G M E N T
---------------------
The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3934 of 2014 claims to be an Association of local residents agitating against the illegal quarrying and working of metal crusher unit in the locality of 7th respondent Panchayat. The petitioner claims that the 8th respondent is running a quarry without obtaining necessary permit/licence. The petitioner relies on Ext.P6 issued by the Geologist. In Ext.P6, it is stated that the quarry shall run only after complying the conditions mentioned therein.
2. W.P.(C) No.6685/2014 is also filed by the neighbour of the 8th respondent in W.P.(C) No.3934. He also filed the writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary steps to cancel the quarrying permit issued to respondent No.3.
3. The respondent quarry owner would submit that he will not run quarry without obtaining necessary clearance from the Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. This is recorded. If the quarry owner commence any activity of quarrying, after obtaining necessary permit/licence, the petitioners in these two writ petitions are at liberty to challenge such order issued by the competent authority. If quarry owner attempts to operate quarrying without licence, the Geologist and competent authority shall take appropriate action against such illegal operations.
These writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE jm/
