Kerala High Court
P.B.Babu vs The Secretary, Forest & Wild Life ... on 15 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 26TH MAGHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 4739 OF 2012
PETITIONER:
P.B.BABU
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.BALAN, PERUMBADAPPU HOUSE, VARANTHARAPPALLY
P.O.,THRISSUR DIST
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY, FOREST & WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
2 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
VANASREE COMPLEX, FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695006
3 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
DIVISONAL FOREST OFFICE PALAKKAD-678009
SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER(FOREST)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 4739 OF 2012
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
-------------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 4739 of 2012
--------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2022
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following
prayers:
"(i) Call for the records leading to the issuance of
Exhibit-P15 order and to quash the same;
(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Clause-iii in
Exhibit-P13 and Clause-xiii in Exhibit-P17 to the extent
value is determined both for sand and silt;
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or order, directing the respondents to act
in furtherance of Exhibit-P16 and P17, after deleting
Clause-iii in Exhibit-P13 and also Clause-xiii in Exhibit-P17
to the extent to which value is determined only for sand
and not for sand and silt;
(iv) Declare that the respondents are legally bound
to comply with the decision of Cabinet Sub-Committee and
to award the contract fixing the price for sand alone;
(v) Grant such other and further reliefs as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances
of the case.[SIC]"
2. When this writ petition came up for
WP(C) NO. 4739 OF 2012
consideration on 03.04.2012, this Court passed the
following order:
"Admit.
Government Pleader takes notice for the
respondents.
There would be an interim order directing the
respondents 1 & 2 to see that the Cabinet Sub Committee
meets again and takes a decision as to whether the rate
should be fixed for sand and silt together or sand alone, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
3. Thereafter the matter again came up on
21.05.2012 and this Court passed the following order:
"Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
2. This Court, by interim order dated 03/04/2012
directed the Cabinet Sub Committee to take a decision as
to whether the rate should be fixed for sand and silt
together or sand alone within one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of the order.
3. In the affidavit filed along with the interlocutory
application for enlargement of time, it is averred in para.5
that the Cabinet Sub Committee which took the relevant
decision is not in existence now. In furtherance of the
interim order dated 03/04/2012, the Hon'ble Chief Minister
has passed an order to constitute a Cabinet Sub Committee
for taking a decision in the matter. It is also stated that
the further action to reconstitute the Cabinet Sub
WP(C) NO. 4739 OF 2012
Committee is being done in the Industries and Commerce
Department of the Government. Various other averments
have been made for seeking extension of time.
4. Learned Government Pleader prayed for grant
of at least 3 months' time to comply with the directions in
the interim order dated 03/04/2012 which is opposed by
the learned counsel for the writ petitioner.
5. Having regard to the averments in the affidavit,
the time is extended by two months from 16/05/2012."
4. Today when this matter came up for
consideration, the learned Special Government Pleader
submitted that the Government subsequently dropped the
work of removal of sand and silt.
In the light of the above submission, the prayers in
the writ petition has become infructuous. Therefore, this
writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
DM
