Hareesh vs Abdul Hakeem
2023 Latest Caselaw 3003 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
         MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1944
                           RP NO. 213 OF 2023
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTWP(C) 520/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/5th respondent

             HAREESH
             AGED 42 YEARS
             S/O. HARIDAS, MATHODI HOUSE, KOTTAKUNNU,
             MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 676505
             BY ADVS.
             R.RANJITH (MANJERI)
             A.P.NIDHIN KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT 1 TO 4

     1       ABDUL HAKEEM
             AGED 54 YEARS
             S/O. MOHAMMED, PULLANI HOUSE, HAJIYARPALLI, MALAPPURAM,
             PIN - 676505.
     2       MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY
             MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MALAPPURAM P.O.,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,, PIN - 676505
     3       THE SECRETARY
             MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,
             MALAPPURAM P.O.,, PIN - 676505
     4       THE GEOLOGIST
             DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
             MINI CIVIL STATION, MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,,
             PIN - 676121
     5       THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER
             MALAPPURAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, UPHILL,
             MALAPPURAM P.O.,, PIN - 676505
             BY ADV C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
             SMT.ANIMA M- Government Pleader
             SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED (SC)-R2 & R3
     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO.213 OF 2023
                                      2




                              ORDER

Dated this the 13th day of March, 2023

The review petition was filed by the 5 th respondent in

W.P.(C) No.520 of 2023 challenging Ext.P7 order. By Ext.P7,

the writ petitioner was required to stop the construction work

alleging that permission from the Geology Department has not

been obtained by the petitioner.

2. The writ petitioner contended before this Court that

the petitioner does not want to transport ordinary earth being

removed. In that view of the matter, the writ petition was

disposed of by this Court directing the petitioner to file an

affidavit before the 2nd respondent-Secretary to the Municipality

undertaking that the petitioner will not transport ordinary earth

from the land of the petitioner. It was made clear that

respondents 2 and 3 will be entitled to visit the site and take any

action in response to the letter issued by the Municipality and

take appropriate action, if at all there are any other statutory RP NO.213 OF 2023

violations.

3. In the writ petition, taking into consideration the

reliefs granted to the writ petitioner, notice to the 5 th respondent

was dispensed with.

4, The 5th respondent in the writ petition has come up

with the review petition alleging errors apparent on the face of

the records. The review petitioner submitted that it is a landslide

prone area and any construction in the area is likely to cause

landslide and disaster. Had the 5th respondent been issued

notice, the 5th respondent would have brought this fact to the

notice of this Court. In such circumstances, there is an apparent

error on the face of the records, contends the counsel for the

review petitioner.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the review

petitioner, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the learned

Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and the learned

Government Pleader representing respondents 4 and 5. RP NO.213 OF 2023

6. The Government Pleader submitted that the

Geologist has issued a report to the District Collector stating

that the construction/removal of earth from the area is likely to

cause to damage to the environment and to cause

environmental issues. In the year 2018-2019, there were

landslides in the area. The counsel for the writ petitioner

submitted that landslide was in a different area.

7. Going through the judgment, I find that the issue

considered by this Court was whether the Geologist was

justified in issuing Ext.P7 memo. This Court found that if

ordinary earth is not being removed from the land, Permit from

the Geologist is not required. Relief was granted in that context.

I find no error apparent on the face of the records. If the

Geologist or the review petitioner has a case that the

construction of the building is likely to cause damages, it is

open to the review petitioner or the competent authorities to

move the Disaster Management Authority and take appropriate

steps in accordance with the Disaster Management Act, 2005. RP NO.213 OF 2023

Grant of relief in W.P.(C) No.520 of 2023 shall not restrain

competent authorities from proceeding with any action if

warranted under the Disaster Management Act.

Review petition is dismissed with the afore clarifications.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh RP NO.213 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF RP 213/2023

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MALAPPURAM DATED 22-7-

Annexure B TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION PREFERRED BY THE NEARBY INHABITANTS BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PUBLISHED IN DESABHIMANI DAILY DATED 10-8-19 Annexure D TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MALAPPURAM TO THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD TALUK, DATED 4/2/2023 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R1(a) The true copy of the affidavit submitted before the Municipality dated 4.3.2023 Annexure R1(b) The true copy of the complaint preferred before the Tahsildar, Eranad Taluk dated 8.3.2023 Annexure R1(c) The true copy of the complaint preferred before the Malappuram Police dated 4.3.2023 Annexure R1(d) The true copy of the certificate issued by AR.CO, Engineering and Contracting Company dated 20.2.2023