Abdul Majeed K vs The District Collector
2023 Latest Caselaw 11017 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
    THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1945
                       WP(C) NO. 35178 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          ABDUL MAJEED K, AGED 43 YEARS
          S/O. HAMZA, KALAPPADAN HOUSE,
          PANG P.O., PADAPPARAMBA, MOOCHIKKAL,
          KURUVA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676505

          BY ADV K.RAKESH



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
          COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
          UP-HILL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676505

    2     THE GEOLOGIST
          DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
          MINI CIVIL STATION, MANJERI,
          MALAPPURAM - 676121

    3     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
          VILLAGE OFFICE, KURUVA,
          MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676504

    4     PULLENKULAVAN MUHAMMED ASHRAF
          PULLENKULAVAN HOUSE, KODUR P.O.,
          MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676504

          R BY SR.GP BIMAL K. NATH


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 35178 OF 2023    : 2 :




                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he is a resident in Ward

No.8 of Kuruva Grama Panchayat, Malappuram District.

The petitioner submits that the 4th respondent is doing

extraction of laterite stones from his property comprised

in Re-Survey No.388/17 and 388/18, under the guise of a

commercial building permit obtained from the Secretary

of the Kuruva Grama Panchayath. The petitioner further

submits that the indiscriminate mining of laterite stones

has far-reaching ecological imbalance and is causing

ground water depletion and scarcity of potable water as

apart from causing dust and noise pollution. It is also

contended that the later support of the neighbouring

properties will be reduced. Accordingly the petitioner has

submitted Ext.P2 complaint before the 2nd respondent/

Geologist. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P2

complaint is not so far considered by the 2nd respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Government Pleader. In the nature of the

order I propose to pass, notice to the 4th respondent is

dispensed with.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and

having considered the submissions made across the Bar,

there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to take up

Ext.P2 complaint submitted by the petitioner and pass

appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, after

hearing the petitioner and the 4th respondent

expeditiously, and at any rate, within a period of one

month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SB

APPENDIX

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OFTHE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE MOBILE TOWER STANDING VERY CLOSE TO THE MINING SITE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12-10-2023

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 11-10-2023

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF DATED 11-10-2023