Catholic Laymens Association vs The State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 904 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
                               &
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
  TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 5TH MAGHA, 1943
                    WP(C) NO. 16197 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:

    1      CATHOLIC LAYMEN'S ASSOCIATION
           REGISTRATION NO 761/98, KOODARANHI P.O,
           KOZHIKODE DITRICT, 673 604,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
           CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,
           M.L.GEORGE, S/O LATE LUKA, AGED 72 YEARS,
           MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, KOODARANHI P.O.
           KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -673 604.
    2      VINCENT MATHEW @ VINCENT KALAPPURAKKAL,
           S/O MATHEW, KALAPPURAYIL HOUSE,
           KOODARANHI P.O.,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -673 604.
           BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN


RESPONDENTS:

   1      THE STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
          NTHE GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
          GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
   2      THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, 673 020
   3      THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
          DISTRICT OFFICE, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,
          CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE,673 020
   4      THE TAHASILDAR,
          THAMARASSERY TALUK, TALUK OFFICE
          THAMARASSERY-673 573.
   5      THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
          VILLAGE OFFICE, KOODARANHI P.O.,
          KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -673 604.
 WP(C).16197/2019
                              2

    6     THE KOODARANHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
          KOODARANHI P.O.KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -673 604.
    7     THE DIOSIS OF THAMARASSERY,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS BISHOP, BISHOPS HOUSE,
          THAMARASSERY P.O.KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 573.
    8     REMIGIOUS PAUL INCHANANI,
          BISHOP, DIOSIS OF THAMARASSERY, BISHOPS HOUSE,
          THAMARASSERY P.O.KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 573.
    9     LITTLE FLOWER CHURCH,
          PUSHPAGIRI, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR,
          KOOMBARA BAZAR P.O.,VIA KOODARANHI,
          KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 604.
    10    MATHEW THAKADIEL,
          VICAR, LITTLE FLOWER CHURCH, PUSHPAGIRI,
          KOOMBARA BAZAR P.O., VIA KOODARANHI,
          KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -673 604.
           BY ADVS.
           SRI. K.R.RANJITH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1-R5
           SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD FOR R7-R10
           SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY


     THIS WRIT PETITION      (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP         FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.01.2022,     THE COURT ON THE SAME          DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).16197/2019
                                         3


                                   JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of January, 2022

Shaji P. Chaly, J.

This public Interest litigation is filed by an Association and one of

its members seeking the following reliefs:

"i. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writs, Orders or directions commanding the respondents to take appropriate action against respondents 7 to 10 for violation of various statutory provisions and penal statutes and also for conducting a quarry in an illegal manner, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice;

ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writs, Orders or directions Commanding the 3 rd respondent to quantify the stones that were mined without paying royalty to the State and to recover the same from the respondents 7 to 10 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice;

iii. Issue a Writ to declare that the action of the respondents 7 to 10 in Conducting a quarry without obtaining permissions and licenses is per-se illegal, irregular and arbitrary."

WP(C).16197/2019

2. The case of the petitioners is that they are aggrieved by the

illegal quarrying operations conducted by the 9 th and 10th respondents

namely, Little Flower Church, Pushpagiri, Kozhikode District and Father

Mathew Thakadiel, Vicar, Little Flower Church, Pushpagiri, Kozhikode

District with the blessings of 7th and 8th respondents namely, the Diocese

of Thamarassery, Kozhikode District and Remigious Paul Inchanani

Bishop, Diocese of Thamarassery. The case projected by petitioners is

that even though no quarrying operations are conducted at present, the

2nd petitioner had submitted a representation before the State of Kerala-

the 1st respondent on the basis of which an enquiry was directed to be

conducted; in the enquiry, it has come out as evident from Exhibit P3

that quarrying operations are being conducted without obtaining any

permission or licenses. Thereupon, the petitioners said to have

submitted representations requesting to take appropriate action. But no

action was initiated, which persuaded the petitioners to approach this

Court by filing the public interest litigation.

3. Respondents 7 to 10 have filed a detailed counter affidavit

basically contending that the allegations contained in the writ petition are

all false. According to the respondents, the church has not conducted

any quarrying operation on its property. After the construction of a WP(C).16197/2019

building in the year 2009, the construction of buildings subsequent to

2009 was carried out with stones that were remaining as excess after

construction of the building in 2009. That apart, it is contended that

more than 30 quarries are functioning in the locality, which comes in the

areas of Kodiyathur, Karassery, Koodaranhi and Urangattiri, which falls in

Kozhikode and Malappuram Districts and the extent of these quarries are

not less than 200 hectares. But the petitioners, keen in espousing the

public cause, did not raise any objection in regard to the working of the

quarries, which had caused serious inconvenience to the local public and

thereby causing environmental problems.

4. Respondent No.3 ie., the District Geologist, Kozhikode has filed

a detailed statement basically contending as follows:

"3. It is submitted that this respondent office had conducted a site inspection in the alleged quarry in Pushpagiri Church, Koodaranhi Village in Thamarassery Taluk on 20.08.2020. During the site inspection, two abandoned quarries were found in the site. For implementing Kerala Mineral Concession Rules 2015, this respondent has issued a Notice No.DOZ/M-1220/2020 dated 21.08.2020 to the land owner in the name of Rev. Father Vicar, Little Flower Church, Koombara Bazar Post, Koodaranji for producing license if any for mining rock in the averred area and also instructed them to protect dangerous abandoned quarry. True photocopy of Notice No.DOZ/M-1220/2020 dated 21.08.2020 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3(a).

WP(C).16197/2019

4. In the meantime this respondent had sent a letter to Tahsildar, Thamarassery vide letter No.DOZ/M-1220/2020 dated 21.08.2020 for issuing a sketch denoting the actual measurement of extraction of granite building stone with the help of Taluk Surveyor and original land owner details. True photocopy of letter No.DOZ/M-1220/2020 dated 21.08.2020 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3(b).

5. The 9th respondent had given a reply dated 26.08.2020 to the Annexure R3(a) notice dated 21.08.2020. A true photocopy of the reply dated 26.08.2020 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3(c). Since the reply received from the 9 th respondent was not satisfactory, this respondent had sent another notice to the land owner by Notice No.DOZ/M-1220/2020 dated 11.09.2020. True photocopy of Notice No.DOZ/M-1220/2020 dated 11.09.2020 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3(d).

6. It is submitted that on 21.10.2020 vide letter No.D1- 11348/2019, Tahsildar, Thamarassery had submitted a report of the Village Officer, Koodaranji Village dated 28.01.2019 along with the sketch stating that the alleged quarry was conducted illegally. True photocopy of letter No.D1-11348/2019 dated 21.10.2020 by the Tahsildar, Thamarassery along with the report is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3(e).

7. It is submitted that after receiving the report from the Tahsildar, Thamarassery, this respondent had sent another Notice No.DOZ/M-1220/2020 dated 10.01.2022 to the land owner Rev. Father Vicar, Little Flower Church, Koombara Bazar Post, WP(C).16197/2019

Koodaranji 673604, asper the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 2015. A true photocopy of Notice No.DOZ/M-1220/2020 dated 10.01.2022 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3(f).

8. Meanwhile the office of the 3rd respondent on inspecting the office registers found that quarrying permits were granted over an extent of 1 Acre owned by the 9 th respondent for a period from 2002 to 2008 and 2008 to 2009 as two separate permits for 12 Cents and 11.75 Cents respectively. Thereafter from 2009 to 2010 two separate permits were granted for 12 Cents and 11.75 Cents in the same extent of the 9th respondent. All these permits were issued as per the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1967.

9. AS per the office records and the report and sketch of the 4 th and 5th respondents [which is marked as Annexure R3(e)], the quantity of granite building stone quarried and removed from the land of the 9th respondent has to be reassessed. On assessment, if any quantity of granite building stone is found removed in excess from the alleged quarry in violation of the permits, further proceedings will be initiated against the owner of the land under the provisions of the Acts and Rules accordingly."

5. We have heard, learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. Binoy

Vasudevan, Sri. John Joseph Vettikkad for respondents 7 to 10 and

learned Government Pleader Sri. K.R. Ranjith for the official respondents,

and perused the pleadings and material on record.

6. The sum and substance of the contention raised by petitioners

would show that quarrying operation was being conducted by WP(C).16197/2019

respondents 9 and 10, without securing necessary clearances from the

respective statutory authorities. It is also the case of the petitioners that

in spite of earnest efforts made by them, the State Government and its

officials have not taken any action and which alone coerced the

petitioners to approach this Court by filing the writ petition. Anyhow, the

contentions put forth by the petitioners are denied by respondents 7 to

10. Whatever that be, now the statement filed by the District Geologist

shows that consequent to the receipt of the complaint, action was

initiated, which is proceeding even now. It is also evident that on

21.8.2020, notice was issued to the 10 th respondent by the Mining and

Geology Department and yet another notice was issued on 21.8.2020

directing the party respondents to respond to the notices and show

cause as to why action shall not be taken against them.

7. It seems replies were submitted to the notices and being

dissatisfied with, further notices were issued by the District Geology

Department basically stating that illegal extraction of quarrying was done

and in fact, has prepared sketches in regard to the same. It is also

evident from the documents produced along with the statement that

reports were called for from the Village Officer concerned and Revenue

Authorities and action is being taken in order to ensure that alleged WP(C).16197/2019

illegalities committed by party respondents are dealt with appropriately.

So much so, added to the same, a notice dated 10.1.2022 is issued to

the party respondents clearly specifying that it is evident from the site

inspection that quarrying was done unauthorisedly and illegally, and

directed the party respondents to submit a reply to the notice dated

10.1.2022.

8. Today, when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the

party respondent Sri. John Joseph Vettikkad submitted that already a

reply is forwarded to notice dated 10.1.2022 and it would suffice if

direction is issued to the District Geologist to consider the submissions

made by party respondents and arrive at just and fair and proper

conclusion.

9. After evaluating the situations discussed above, and since we

find that action is being pursued by the District Geology Office,

Kozhikode, reliefs as are sought for in the writ petition have virtually

been addressed by official respondents. In that view of the matter, we

are of the clear opinion that writ petition can be disposed of with

appropriate directions.

10. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the District

Geologist-respondent No.3 to attain finality to the proceedings that are WP(C).16197/2019

spelt out in the statement by it dated 24.1.2022, and in accordance with

the notices issued to the party respondents at the earliest and at any

rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment, after providing an opportunity of hearing and participation to

all concerned.

Sd/-

S. Manikumar, Chief Justice

Sd/-

Shaji P. Chaly, Judge

sou.

WP(C).16197/2019

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16197/2019

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P1(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-1. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.9.2018 EXHIBIT P2(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-2.

EXHIBIT P3         TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ALONG WITH THE
                   LOCATION   SKETCH    OBTAINED   UNDER   THE

PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005.

EXHIBIT P3(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-3. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED UNDER THE RTI ACT DATED 24.10.2018 EXHIBIT P4(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-4. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 14.11.2018 RECEIVED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.2005 EXHIBIT P5(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-5. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 24.10.2018 EXHIBIT P6(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-6. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 8.11.2018 EXHIBIT P7(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-7. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.1.2019 EXHIBIT P8(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-8. WP(C).16197/2019

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION WITH POSTAL RECEIPT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.3.2019 EXHIBIT P9(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P-9.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE R3(a) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE NO.DOZ/M-1220/2020 DATED 21.8.2020 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLALTION ANNEXURE R3(b) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.DOZ/M-1220/2020 DATED 21.8.2020 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLALTION ANNEXURE R3(c) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26.8.2020 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLALTION ANNEXURE R3(d) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE NO.DOZ/M-1220/2020 DATED 11.9.2020 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLALTION ANNEXURE R3(e) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.D1-11348/2019 DATED 21.10.2020 BY THE TAHSILDAR THAMARASSERY ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLALTION ANNEXURE R3(f) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE NO.DOZ/M-1220/2020 DATED 10.01.2022 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLALTION

ANNEXURE R9(a) TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE NO.201/09-

10/MM/GS/CRPS/002/M1449/9 DATED 09.11.2009. ANNEXURE R9(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.9.2005 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, KOZHIKODE ALONG WITH THE TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.