Kerala High Court
Rajan M G vs Geologist on 4 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 9343 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
RAJAN M G
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O GOPALAN, MANJASSERIYIL HOUSE, METHALA P O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683545
BY ADV MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 GEOLOGIST
DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, COLLECTORATE,
KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682030
2 THE ASAMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
OFFICE OF ASAMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ASAMANNOOR P O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PIN -
683549
3 THE SECRETARY
ASAMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,OFFICE OF ASAMANNOOR GRAMA
PANCHAYATH, ASAMANNOOR P O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -
683549
BY SR.GP - DEEPA NARAYANAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No. 9343 of 2024 :2:
VIJU ABRAHAM , J.
===========================
WP(C) No. 9343 of 2024
============================
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 stop
memo.
2. A perusal of Ext.P4 would reveal that the stop memo was
issued for the reason that on a preliminary enquiry it appeared that
ordinary earth has been removed in excess of the permitted
quantity. When the matter came up for consideration on an earlier
occasion this Court issued an order dated 11.03.2024 directing the
1st respondent to conduct a site inspection with notice to the
petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 and submit a report before
the authorities concerned and if the report is in favour of the
petitioner necessary action shall be taken by the 3 rd respondent to
withdraw the stop memo. This Court also directed that the 1 st
respondent shall also consider the request of the petitioner for
extension of the period of Ext.P2 permit taking into consideration the
fact that petitioner shall not move any mineral during the period of
stop memo. Now Ext.P8 report has been submitted by the Geologist
before the respondents 2 and 3 informing that in the inspection no
violations could be found out.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.
4. In view of issuance of Ext.P8 report, I am of the view that
Ext.P4 is liable to be interfered with and the same is accordingly
quashed. If the petitioner makes an application seeking for extension
of Ext.P2 permit, the same shall be considered by the 1 st respondent
taking into consideration the period the petitioner has lost due to the
issuance of the stop memo. A decision in this regard shall be taken
within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sbk/-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9343/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SITE APPROVAL AND
BUILDING PERMIT NO. C2-BA(173307)/2023
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
18/05/2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM S NO.
DOERN-DMG/1659/2023-MDO ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 07/02/2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C)
NO. 8697 OF 2024 DATED 04/03/2024
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO BEARING NO.
J.C.3-663/2024 DATED 05/03/2024
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION/ REPLY
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPONSE TO
EXT P4 STOP MEMO DATED 06/03/2024
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT
NO. 400600/ GGDC08/GPO/2024/895 DATED
06/03/2024
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
01/03/2023 IN WP(C) NO. 7131 OF 2023
Additional Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BY THE 1ST
P8 RESPONDENT BEARING NO.
DOERN-DMG/1659/2023-MDO DATED 03/04/2024
