Back
2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46899
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
RITA G ADIYODI – Appellant
Versus
ABDUL RAHMAN HAJIPADIKAL HOUSE – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 6239/2011
Authorities must act promptly on complaints regarding illegal activities to uphold the rule of law and protect public welfare.
Headnote:
Environmental - Quarrying Dispute - Act Section List - The court reviewed petitions regarding illegal quarrying activities, instructing relevant authorities to take timely action while considering legal rights and public safety.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed for intervention against illegal quarrying operations conducted by the 7th respondent, alleging a lack of enforcement by relevant authorities despite prior complaints.
Issues: Whether the respondents are neglecting their duty to stop illegal quarrying activities and provide adequate protection to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of timely action by authorities to prevent illegal activities and protect the petitioner's rights.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of with directions to the authorities.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 4th respondent to stop the illegal quarrying of laterite stone carrying in the property situated on the western side of the petitioner property.
ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 5th respondent to grant adequate police protection to the life and property of the petitioner.
iii. Direct the second respondent to initiate appropriate action against the 7th respondent for carrying illegal quarrying of laterite stone without permit and licence.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, because of the illegal quarrying operations being pursued by the 7th respondent, without any regard to the rule of law, the petitioner has filed Ext. P7 complaint before the concerned Village Officer, but the same is still to be acted upon. It is also the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner had brought the grievance to the notice of the 4th respondent way back in 19th August, 2010 by filing Ext. P2. It is further pointed out that, cause of action which was originated in the year 2005 itself had been brought to the notice of 4th respondent by filing Ext. P5, but no positive step has been taken by the concerned respondent, thus indirectly permitting the 7th respondent to proceed with the illegal activities, which hence is sought to be intercepted by this Court.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
4. Taking note of the facts and circumstances, the fourth respondent is directed to consider Exts. P1 and P2 and such other representations if any, to be submitted by the petitioner within 'two weeks' and the matter shall be finalized in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the 7th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the fourth respondent for further steps.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd
