Nixon John vs Pallickal Grama Panchayat
2022 Latest Caselaw 8375 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

          FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944

                         WP(C) NO. 13558 OF 2015

PETITIONER/S:

           NIXON JOHN
           DIRECTOR,PUTHUSSERIL
           GRANITES,KALATHIPACHA,KATTUPUTHUSSERRY,PALLICKAL.P.O,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 604.
           BY ADV SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH


RESPONDENT/S:

     1     PALLICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT
           PALLICKAL.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 604,REPRESENTED BY
           ITS SECRETARY.
     2     THE SECRETARY
           PALLICKAL GRAMA
           PANCHAYATH,PALLICHAL.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 604.
     3     THE GEOLOGIST
           DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT
           OFFICE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
           BY ADVS.
           SMT.NIMA JACOB
           R1 & R2 BY SRI.K.SIJU




           R3- SRI.K.P.HARISH,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.07.2022,

     THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
  W.P.(C) No. 13558/2015               :2:




                             SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
            ---------------------------------------------------------
                        W.P.(C). No. 13558 of 2015
             ---------------------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 1st day of July, 2022.

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following

reliefs:

1. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1 st and 2nd respondents

to issue D & O licence to the petitioner immediately;

2. Direct the 3rd respondent to issue required number of transit

passes to the petitioner as prescribed by law.

3. Restrain the 1st and 2nd respondents from interfering with the

quarrying activities as well as the functioning of the crusher unit of the petitioner.

2. However, today, when the matter is taken up for

consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the matter has become infructuous.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

                                      sd/­     SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv