Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 34594
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. Jayachandran, J
Leslian Thomas – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 28617 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Biju Balakrishnan, V.S.Rakhee, K.J.Gisha, Akshaya S.Nair, Jayakumar C.
For the Respondents: Sindhu Santhalingam, S.S.Aravind, Enoch David Simon Joel, S.Sreedev, Rony Jose, Leo Lukose, Karol Mathews Sebastian Alencherry, Derick Mathai Saji, Ittoop Joy Thattil, Karan Scaria Abraham, T.Naveen
A writ petition challenging industrial or commercial operations becomes infructuous upon the expiration of the operator's statutory permits and licenses, rendering the primary grievance moot, provided the respondent undertakes to operate only upon securing valid future authorization.
Headnote:The proceedings concern a challenge against quarrying activities citing environmental and regulatory violations. As the relevant permits and licenses for the activity had expired during the pendency of the petition, the respondents submitted that the matter had become infructuous. The central issue was whether the petition remained actionable despite the expiry of statutory permissions. The court held that since the primary source of grievance had ceased to exist, the petition did not warrant further adjudication. The petition was closed on the basis of the undertaking that no further operations would be conducted without valid documentation, with liberty reserved for the petitioners to approach the court again if illegal activities occur in the future.
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the subject matter of this Writ Petition has become infructuous, since enabling licences and permits in favour of the 11th respondent have already expired. It has been undertaken on behalf of the said respondent that except after obtaining necessary permits and licences in accordance with law, there will not be any quarrying operations in the subject site.
Recording the said submission, this Writ Petition will stand closed. It is made clear that in case there is any illegal or excess quarrying at the instance of the 11th respondent, it will be open for the petitioner to approach this Court afresh.
