Abhinav Babu vs The District Geologist, Kollam

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6134 Ker
Judgement Date : 1 June, 2022

Kerala High Court
Abhinav Babu vs The District Geologist, Kollam on 1 June, 2022
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
     WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                      WP(C) NO. 17750 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          ABHINAV BABU,
          AGED 23 YEARS,
          S/O PERUMANOOR,
          MELETHILPUTHENVEEDU,
          ARAKKAL, YEARS,
          PUNALUR, KOLLAM.

          BY ADV. SYAM J SAM

RESPONDENT:

          THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
          KOLLAM,
          DISTRICT GEOLOGY OFFICE,
          KOLLAM P.O.,
          KOLLAM PIN 691501.

          SRI.SYAMANTHAK B.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)No.17750/2022

                                   2




                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of June, 2022 The petitioner, who is owner of 4 Ares of property in Arakkal Village in Kollam District, has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the respondent to consider Ext.P3 application to permit the petitioner to take out soil from his property.

2. The petitioner states that he is in possession of 4 Ares of property in Re-Survey Nos.262/11 and 262/4-2, Block No.30 in Arakkal Village in Kollam District. In order to construct a house, the petitioner submitted an application and the District Geologist granted permission to the petitioner to remove earth from the property. The petitioner could not remove the earth within the stipulated time due to red alert declared by the Government in Kollam District. WP(C)No.17750/2022 3

3. The petitioner earlier approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.12683 of 2022 seeking to permit him to remove the entire quantity and this Court passed Ext.P1 interim order directing that the respondent shall endeavor to take a decision on the application as evidenced by Ext.P2 within three weeks. On 19.05.2022, the writ petition was closed recording the submission made by the Government Pleader that pursuant to Ext.P1 interim order, application of the petitioner has been considered and orders have been passed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though enlargement of time was granted pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.12683 of 2022, the petitioner still could not remove the earth due to the red alert declared by the District Administration. The petitioner therefore submitted Ext.P3 application before the Geologist for enlargement of time reasonably in order to remove the WP(C)No.17750/2022 4 earth to facilitate construction of the building. Ext.P3 has not been considered by the respondent so far.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent.

6. The learned Government Pleader submits that if Ext.P3 application is received by the respondent, the respondent has no objection in considering the application and passing orders thereon in accordance with law.

In view of the statements as made above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate decision thereon, within a period of two weeks.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR WP(C)No.17750/2022 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17750/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 12683/2022. Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 12683/2022.

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER.