Kerala High Court
Dr.Naveen Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 17 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 15434 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 DR.NAVEEN PILLAI,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT KAILASAM,
EDAYANMULA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PIN- 689 533.
2 M.E.PARAMESWARAN,
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O AYYAPPAN ITHIYATHY, RESIDING AT RAMANIKA,
KEEZHCHERIMELMURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE,
CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. PIN-689121.
3 BOZEN JOHN,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O P.V. JOHN, RESIDING AT SILVER NEST,
KEEZHCHERIMEL MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE,
CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. PIN- 689121.
BY ADVS.
K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)
R.KISHORE (KALLUMTHAZHAM)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
2 DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 004.
3 THE GEOLOGIST,
DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY
MINI CIVIL STATION, IST FLOOR, CHERTHALA P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA. PIN-688524.
4 DISTRICT COLLETOR,
COLLECTRATE, CIVIL STATION,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PIN-
5 TAHASILDAR, CHENGANNUR TALUK,
CHENGANNUR P.O., ALAPPUZHA PIN-689121.
6 CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY,
CHENGANNUR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. PIN- 689121,
W.P.(C).No.15434/2022
2
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.
7 FR. JIJU VARGHESE,
AGED 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT THUNDIYIL CARMEL VILLA, ANGADICAL
SOUTH P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. PIN
691555.
BY ADVS.
JACOB P.ALEX
JOSEPH P.ALEX
MANU SANKAR P.
AMAL AMIR ALI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.15434/2022
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.15434 of 2022
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2022
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. Call for the records relating to Exhibit P1 transits
permit of the third respondent and quash the
same by issuing a writ of certiorari or such other
orders, appropriate writ, direction or orders.
ii. Call for the records relating to the building permit
and development plan No.BA- 256/2020-21 dated
23.04.2021 issued by the 6 th Respondent
Municipality and quash the same by issuing a writ
of certiorari or such other orders, appropriate
writ, direction or orders.
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or
direction directing the second respondent to
consider and conduct an enquiry about the
extraneous facts relating to the issuance of
Exhibit P1 as alleged in Exhibit P2 complaint.
iv. Direct the fourth respondent to supervise and
ensure excavation is in terms of building permit
and development plan issued by the Municipality.
v. Direct the second respondent to measure out the
W.P.(C).No.15434/2022
total quantity of earth removed from property and
assess the loyalty and fine for violation of Exhibit
P1 and take departmental action against the third
respondent, who failed to perform his official
capacity.
vi. To mould and Issue such other orders and
directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in
the circumstances.
(SIC)
2. The main challenge in this writ petition is against
Ext.P1 order passed by the 3 rd respondent. The petitioners
were allowed by the Geologist to excavate and remove red
earth from the property covered by Ext.R7(d) sketch as per
Ext.P1 order. According to the petitioners, this is a blanket
order which does not specify or identify the area, the length
and width of excavation, depth etc. It is also stated that the
petitioners were not heard before passing any order because
they already filed a complaint against this before the
Geologist.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned Government Pleader, learned Standing Counsel for
the 6th respondent and the learned counsel for the 7th
respondent.
W.P.(C).No.15434/2022
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners takes me
through Ext.P1 order and submitted that it is a blanket order
which does not specify or identify the area, the length and
width of excavation, depth etc. The learned counsel also
submitted that from Ext.P1, it is clear that the 7 th respondent
is having 19.66 Ares of land. If the excavation is done in the
entire area, that will create lot of problems to the local
residents. The learned counsel further submitted that as per
Ext.P4, the Geologist already cancelled the permit and
therefore, this Court may kindly take note of the same.
5. The learned counsel for the 7 th respondent
submitted that he will excavate the ordinary earth strictly in
accordance to Ext.R7(d) plan. In Ext.R7(d) the proposed earth
cutting portion is clearly mentioned. The Geologist considered
Ext.R7(d) also and inspected the property before passing
Ext.P1 order. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the
same is demarcated by the Geologist and thereafter Ext.P1
order is passed. The learned Government Pleader submitted
that Ext.P4 order is passed based on the interim order passed
by this Court.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the
W.P.(C).No.15434/2022
petitioner and the respondents. The only challenge against
Ext.P1 is that it is a blanket order which does not specify or
identify the area, the length and width of excavation, depth
etc. I perused Ext.R7(d) sketch which was available before the
Geologist at the time of issuing Ext.P1. In Ext.R7(d), the
proposed earth cutting portion is clearly mentioned. The 7 th
respondent can remove the earth only in accordance to
Ext.R7(d) and Ext.P1. In such circumstances it cannot be said
that it is a blanket order which does not specify or identify the
area, the length and width of excavation, depth etc. The
petitioners are neighbours of the 7 th respondent. The 7th
respondent want to level his land for constructing a building.
Hence he applied before the Geologist for permission. The
learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the building
permit is challenged before the Tribunal for Local Self
Government Institutions. The learned counsel appearing for
the Municipality submitted that there is no interim order
passed by the Tribunal so far to the knowledge of the
Municipality.
In such circumstances, according to me, there is nothing
wrong and there is nothing to interfere with Ext.P1 order. I
W.P.(C).No.15434/2022
make it clear that the 7 th respondent will remove the earth
strictly in accordance to Ext.R7(d) sketch. The 3 rd respondent
will supervise the same. The 3rd resident will also pass
consequential orders in tune with Ext.P1 in the light of this
judgment.
With the above observation, this writ petition is closed.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
W.P.(C).No.15434/2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15434/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE COPY OF ORDER/TRANSITS PASS DATED
27.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE THIRD
RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 THE COPY OF COMPLAINT SENT TO THE
SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 03. 05.2022.
Exhibit P3 THE COPY OF COMPLAINT SENT TO THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA DATED
03.05.2022.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 11/04/2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICE, CHENGANNUR
Exhibit R7(B) TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT
BEARING NO. BA-256/20-21 DATED
23/04/2021 ISSUED BY SECRETARY,
CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY
Exhibit R7(C) TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
BEARING NO. BA-256/20-21 DATED
23/04/2021 ISSUED BY SECRETARY,
CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY
Exhibit R7(D) TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH APPROVED BY
CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY IN PERMIT
BEARING NO. BA-256/20-21 DATED
23/04/2021
Exhibit R7(E) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.
12/2022-23/MM/OE/DOA/672/2021 DATED
27/04/2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
08/06/202 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
