The rejection of a development permit application due to lack of authority response is improper; timely processing and necessary expert consultation are essential.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is an Education Trust registered under Indian Trust Act and is running a School affiliated to CBSE by name ‘Santa Maria Academy’. The School is situated in the property having an extend of 18 Acres comprised in R.S.No.190,191/1,191/2,191/5 and 196/2 of Vallachira Village, Thrissur Taluk. As part of improving the facilities in the School, the petitioner decided to develop the existing play ground into a football ground of FIFA standards, for which help and assistance were offered by a Football Club.

2. Accordingly, it was decided to develop the existing ground as Ground No.1, which is to be used for matches and to develop a second ground (Ground No.2) for practice purposes. They also intend to construct a swimming pool. The existing ground which was originally having measurement of 60 meter x 30 meters has been levelled and the play ground was enlarged to have a dimension of 100 meter x 70 meters. The levelling work of Ground No.1 is already completed. The said ground is intended to be laid with natural grass. Towards the north of the space, which is to be converted as Ground No.2, a school building was situated about 100 meter below. About 25% of the space where ground No.2 to be established is in the same level and the remaining lands lies in an ascending slope from south to west. Therefore, in order to make it in the same level, ordinary earth from higher portion has to be removed and to be placed on the lower level. The ordinary earth to be excavated are intended to be used for levelling purpose of Ground No2 itself and a portion of the ordinary earth was also needed for planting natural grass in Ground No.1. The petitioner intends to transport the soil outside, if any remaining after utilizing the soil excavated in the manner as referred to above, which according to the petitioner will be done only after obtaining a transit pass in this regard from the authorities concerned.

3. According to the petitioners, as part of implementing the said plan, they started demolition of the concrete structure existing in the said area and the debris were transported outside the property. At this juncture, the 6^th respondent, who claims to be a social worker, submitted a complaint before the Village Officer and the Secretary to the Panchayat, alleging illegal transportation of soil, which resulted in Ext.P3 stop memo by the Village Officer. The Panchayat Secretary has also issued Ext.P4 notice against the same. The aforesaid notices were issued to the petitioner alleging that they are illegally removing the soil, without obtaining any development permit in this regard. In such circumstances, the petitioner sought a clarification from Geologist as to whether any permit is required for transporting concrete debris outside the property. Exhibit P5 is the said notice but there was no response to the same.

4. In the meantime, yet another complaint happened to be submitted by the 6^th respondent alleging illegal removal of soil by the petitioner, before the Tahsildar and the same was forwarded by the Tahsildar to the Geologist, the 4^th respondent herein. Acting upon the said complaint, Geologist, Kerala Mineral Squad, conducted an inspection in the property of the petitioner and a report was submitted before the Geologist, Thrissur. Exhibit P6 is the said report. In Ext.P6, it was reported that, excavation had been carried out and the 4^th respondent issued a notice to