Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 12673 Ker
Judgement Date : 21 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 3775 OF 2017
PETITIONERS:
1 M.V JANSON
S/O.M.P.VARKEY, AGED 50 YEARS, MANICHERI HOUSE,
VADAYAMPADI, PIN-682308.
2 SANTHOSH KUMAR P.V.
S/O.VENUGOPAL, PUTHENKUDY, VADAYAMPADI, PIN-682308.
BY ADV SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY
(SEIAA)
KERALA, DEVIKRIPA, PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695024.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD, PIN-682030.
3 THE TAHSILDAR
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683565.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682311.
5 THE GEOLOGIST
DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD, PIN-682030.
6 THOMAS
S/O.PAILY, MANATHU HOUSE, VADAYAMPADY KARA, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN-682308.
7 MATHAI M.T.
S/O.THOMAS, MANATHU HOUSE, VADAYAMPADY KARA,ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN-682308.
8 JIJI MATHEW
S/O.MATHEW, KOLOOTHUMJUZHI, CHOORAKKODUKARA,
W.P (C) No.3775 of 2017
2
PATTIMATTAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683562.
BY ADVS.
SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE - R6 TO R8
SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P (C) No.3775 of 2017
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,J.
---------------------
W.P (C) No.3775 of 2017
---------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, direction or orders calling for the records leading to Exhibits P1 and P2 and quash the same.
ii) Declare that the issuance of Exhibit P1 by the 1st respondent is in violation to the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest vide notification No.SO1533 dated 14.09.2006 and hence it is vitiated.
iii) render such other orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." [SIC]
2. When this writ petition came up for consideration,
the learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 8
submitted that since the period of Ext.P2 is expired, the
prayers in this writ petition are infructuous. I think there is
force in the above argument. Therefore, this writ petition is
dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE bng
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!