Pareed .K.S vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 8778 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 21085 OF 2022
PETITIONER

               PAREED .K.S
               AGED 63 YEARS
               S/O SAIDU MUHAMMED, AGED 63 YEARS, KOPPARAMBIL
               HOUSE, ARAKKAPPADY, VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM PIN
               683556.
               BY ADV MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN


RESPONDENTS

    1          STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
               LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,
               SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695002.
    2          THE GEOLOGIST,
               DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, CIVIL
               STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM PIN 682030.
    3          THE ASAMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
               ASAMANNOOR PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683549,
               REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
    4          THE SECRETARY,
               THE ASAMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ASAMANNOOR PO,
               ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683549.
               BY ADV SHRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR, SC, ASAMANNOOR
               GRAMA PANCHAYAT

               SRI.SYAMANTHAK B S, GP


        THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP    FOR
ADMISSION       ON   07.07.2022,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C) No.21085 of 2022         :2:




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 7th day of July, 2022

The petitioner wants to commercially use his property

and to remove ordinary earth for commercial purpose. The

petitioner requires a Letter of Intent from the Geologist for

the said purpose.

2. When the petitioner approached the 2 nd respondent-

Geologist, the Geologist required the petitioner to get a No

Objection Certificate from the Local Self Government

Authorities. The petitioner approached the 4 th respondent-

Secretary to Grama Panchayat. Upon the application of the

petitioner, Ext.P3 decision has been taken by the Grama

Panchayat. In Ext.P3 decision, it has been stated that the

petitioner is not seen to have obtained a Building Permit.

Furthermore, one of the Ward Members pointed out that the

road is at a higher level and plying of heavy vehicles is likely

to damage the road. On that basis, the application is

rejected.

3. The Standing Counsel entered appearance on

behalf of respondents 3 and 4. The Standing Counsel

submitted that though in Ext.P2 application submitted by the

petitioner for NOC, it is stated that NOC is for the purpose of

producing before the State Environment Impact Assessment

Authority (SEIAA), the purpose of removal of ordinary earth is

not indicated in Ext.P2.

4. In the absence of any reason, respondents 3 and 4

cannot consider the application. The counsel for the

petitioner, on the other hand, submitted that in Ext.P2, it has

been specifically stated that NOC is required for obtaining

Environmental Clearance through the SEIAA. It is for

commercial use of the ordinary earth, contended the

petitioner.

5. I have heard the learned counsel representing the

petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing

respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel

representing respondents 3 and 4.

6. As far as the question of damage that may occur

due to vehicular traffic through the road in question is

concerned, this Court has held that the Panchayat Authorities

have no power to regulate operation of vehicles through

public roads. This Court has held so in Ext.P4 judgment.

7. As far as the question of purpose of NOC is

concerned, a perusal of Ext.P2 application made by the

petitioner would show that it has explicitly expressed the

purpose of removal of ordinary earth. In view of the above,

this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed

of with appropriate directions.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of permitting

the petitioner to file a fresh application for NOC before the 4 th

respondent indicating the exact purpose for which NOC and

Environmental Clearance are required. If the petitioner

submits such an application, respondents 3 and 4 shall take

a decision thereon, taking into consideration the

observations made hereinabove, within a period of three

weeks.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE smm/08.07.2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21085/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN DATED 22/12/2021 .

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR GRANT OF NOC .

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION/ DECISION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16/06/2022.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO 10541/2021 DATED 12/01/2022.