IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
RINCY ROY – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR (CHAIRPERSON UNDER THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT, 2005) – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 9715 OF 2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks intervention to stop unauthorized land filling. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court conditions for considering the petition are set. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"a) Issue a writ of mandamus, directing Respondents 1 to immediately stop the illegal and unauthorized land filling being carried out by Respondent No.7 and his men in Thangalpara Ward of Koottickal Panchayat, Koottickal Village, Kottayam District;
b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondents 1 and 2 to exercise their statutory powers under the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to prevent the illegal land filling and to take immediate preventive measures to avert any possible landslide, flooding, or environmental hazard in the area;
c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure that the are in which unauthorised landfilling carried out is restored to its actual state before the rainy season begins;
d) consider and take appropriate action on P10 complaint submitted by the petitioner within a time frame after hearing the petitioner;
e) Grant such other orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. "
[SIC]
2. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied at this stage if a direction is issued to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P9, within a time frame.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayath. The manner in which this writ petition is going to be disposed of, no notice is necessary to the 7th respondent. If the 7th respondent is aggrieved by any of the directions issued by this Court, the 7th respondent is free to file review petition before this Court.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think there can be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P9 within a time frame. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
i) The 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P9 (if it is received and pending), after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 7th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
ii) The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition with Exhibits before the 1st respondent for compliance.
Sd/-
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.