Back
2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 21062
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
SUNNEY SEBASTIAN – Appellant
Versus
RAJAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 29379/2013
Statutory compliance is essential in regulating quarrying activities, and authorities must act to enforce it when violations occur.
Headnote:
Quarrying - Prohibition of Illegal Quarrying Activities - Statutory Provisions List - The court addressed the issue of unlawful quarrying activities in light of statutory requirements and previous orders, mandating appropriate actions by relevant authorities to ensure compliance and protect the environment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of prohibition against the 1st respondent's quarrying actions, citing violations of prior orders and regulatory provisions. Additionally, the petitioner requested mandamus orders for relevant authorities to act against these violations and address the petitioner's representation.
Issues: Whether the 1st respondent was conducting quarrying activities in violation of statutory provisions and previous orders, and if the concerned authorities should enforce compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that statutory compliance is imperative for quarrying activities and that the authorities must take action to address violations and consider the petitioner's representation, ensuring an opportunity for all parties to be heard.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of directing the authorities to act on the petitioner's representation within six weeks.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
“i) Issue a writ of prohibition, preventing the 1st respondent from conducting quarrying activity in Poochappara in Kurngupara in Ward No.IV of Rajakkad Grama Panchayath, in violation of Exhibit P5 order and the statutory provisions governing the matter.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction, compelling the concerned among respondents 2 to 6 to forthwith take appropriate actions for preventing quarrying and metal crushing activity by the 1st respondent in Poochappara in Kurangupara in Ward No.IV of Rajakkad Grama Panchayath.
Iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction, compelling the respondents 2 to 6 to expeditiously dispose of Exhibit P11 representation submitted by the petitioner.
iv) Grant such other relief that is prayed for and is deemed just and proper to grant in the interest of justice.”
2. Despite the competition of service of notice on admission, there is no representation for the respondents 1 and 2.
3. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that P7 consent issued by the State Pollution Control Board is valid valid only up to 01.01.2014. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there is blatant violation W.P.C.No.29379 OF 2013 2 of statutory requirements in conducting the quarrying operation of the 1st respondent more so, with reference to Ext.P5 issued by the 6th respondent, and that the violation has been brought to the notice of the 4th respondent by filing Ext.P11 representation. 4. In the above circumstances, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P11 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondents 1 and 2. The proceedings of the above shall be finalised, at the earliest, at any rate within 'six weeks' from the receipt of a copy of this judgment.
5. It is made clear that, if any application for renewal is filed by the 1st respondent, before the 2nd and 3rd respondent, they shall be considered only subject to the orders to be passed by the 4th respondent as above. The 'status quo' will continue till the proceedings are finalised as above.
The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE jm/
\\ TRUE COPY \\
PA TO JUDGE
