IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 38103 of 2008(J)


1. SHALINI CHEMBAYIL, CHEMBAYIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

3. PUZHEKKATHIRI PANCHAYATH,

4. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, MAMBILAKATH VEEDU,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :19/06/2009

 O R D E R
                               S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
                   -------------------------------------------------
                        W.P.(C)No. 38103 OF 2008
                   -------------------------------------------------
                   Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009


                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner's complaint in this writ petition is that the 4th respondent is operating his granite quarry and crusher unit adjacent to the petitioner's property without obtaining the necessary statutory clearance from the authorities. Petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:

"i. to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ, order or direction commanding respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to permit the 4th respondent to conduct blasting or quarrying without the necessary statutory licences, permissions, consent and no objection certificate under the Air(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; The Explosives Act 1884, The Explosives Rules 1983 and the Kerala Panchayathi Raj Act.

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to ensure that no blasting is being carried out by the fourth respondent without getting permission/licence from the Panchayat.

iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents Nos.1 and 2 to take action on Exthibit.P2 after hearing the petitioner."

2. The petitioner now categorically asserts that the 4th respondent has not obtained a licence from the Panchayat under the  WPC :38103/08 -:2:- Kerala Panchayat Raj (Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules ('D&O Rules' for short), without which the 4th respondent cannot operate a quarry or crusher unit.

3. The 4th respondent would, in his counter affidavit, submit that he has all the statutory clearances, permits etc. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent Panchayat to the effect that no licence is required from the Panchayat under the D&O Rules, since the activity does not come under Entry 100 in Schedule I of the D&O Rules.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner brings to my attention a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Gem Granites v. Deputy Superintendent of Police [2008(1) KLT 937] wherein the Division Bench has held that to extract granite, which is a minor mineral, licence from the Panchayat under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 is mandatory and therefore the contention of the 3rd respondent in that regard is totally unsustainable. In fact, the 4th respondent himself admits that he has applied for a licence under those Rules, which application is admittedly pending. That being so, the 4th respondent  WPC :38103/08 -:3:- could not have started and continued the quarry and crusher unit operations without first obtaining that licence. Admittedly, he is yet to receive that licence. In the above circumstances, the 4th respondent cannot continue the quarry and crusher units without obtaining licence from the Panchayat. Accordingly, there would be a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to see that the 4th respondent does not continue to operate the quarry and crusher unit without obtaining licence from the 3rd respondent Panchayat.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb