Back
2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 32194
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
SUNIL KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/28052/2018
SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ, SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH, SRI.JOHN MATHAI, SRI. T.NAVEEN, ADV. K.A.JALEEL, GP POOJA SURENDRAN
The court reinforced the obligation of local authorities to enforce licensing regulations for quarrying activities to prevent illegal operations.
Headnote:
Quarrying - Municipality - Act Section List - The court analyzed the legal obligations of the Municipality regarding quarrying permits and affirmed the need for immediate enforcement actions against illegal quarrying activities, emphasizing the importance of obtaining necessary consents and permissions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleges illegal quarrying operations by the 8th respondent within the Kondotty Municipality without required licenses. The Municipality had issued a stop memo against these activities, yet the 8th respondent continued operating unlawfully.
Issues: Whether the 8th respondent's quarrying activities were illegal and what measures should be taken by the Municipality and police authorities in response.
Ratio Decidendi: The Municipality is mandated to ensure compliance with licensing requirements for quarrying; thus, it was deemed essential for them to act promptly to prevent illegal operations.
Final Decision: The writ petition is ordered; the Municipality must take necessary action against the 8th respondent.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the 8th respondent is conducting illegal quarrying operation within the confines of the Kondotty-Municipality, without obtaining any of the necessary and imperative licences, consents and permissions, and therefore, that the Municipality has issued Ext.R3(a) stop memo against such activities. He alleges that, however, the 8th respondent is still carrying on with such illegal activities with scant regard for the authority of law; and consequently, prays that the competent Authority be directed to take emergent action against him and stop him from any further quarrying operations .
2. The learned Government Pleader-Smt.Pooja Surendran appearing on behalf the official respondents, submits that, if the 8th respondent is carrying on quarrying activities without the necessary consents and permissions then certainly, the secretary of the Municipality is obligated in law to ensure that it is stopped and that he can always requisition the assistance of the other Authorities including the concerned police Officials-for such purpose. She says that the writ petition may be ordered on such terms.
3. Even though notice from this Court has been validly served on the Municipality and on the 8th respondent, they have chosen not to be present in person or to be represented through counsel inferentially guiding me to the impression that they have nothing to offer in answer to the various allegations in this writ petition.
4. When I consider the afore submissions and go through the pleadings on record, it is ineluctable that the Municipality has found that the 8th respondent is conducting their activities without any of the requisite licences. This is evident from the fact that they have issued Ext.R3(a) stop memo as early as on 01.10.2018; and therefore, if the 8th respondent is still carrying on such activity, it certainly is a matter of great concern.
5. I am, therefore, of the view that immediate action should be taken against the 8th respondent to stop him carrying on any further activities in violation of law.
In the result, I order this writ petition and direct the 3rd respondent-Secretary of the Kondotty Municipality to immediately take necessary steps against the 8th respondent, after affording him an opportunity of being heard and issue final orders against his activities, if he is conducting the same without obtaining the necessary consents, permissions and licences. The Secretary of the Municipality will also be at liberty to requisition the assistance of the competent Police Authorities, if resistance is caused to the lawful action being taken against the 8th respondent.
I further direct the 7th respondent–Revenue Divisional Officer to ensure that these directions are implicitly compiled with by the Secretary and to take necessary remedial action, if it is found that the 8th respondent still continues to engage in illegalities, in violation of the directions herein.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.DOM/M-2567/2018 DATED
02.07.2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.06.2018 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBI-R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 01-10-18 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KONDOTTY POLICE STATION.
