Kerala High Court
Sobin P K vs State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2025
Author: N. Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:52364
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 24802 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SOBIN P K
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O P V KURIAKOSE, PUTHAYATH HOUSE,
KUZHOOR, AIRAPURAM PO, ERNAKULAM,
KERALA, PIN - 683541
BY ADVS.
SHRI.VIJAY SANKAR V.H.
SMT.MINTU CHERIYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT ANNEX,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, OONNUKAL PS
OONNUKAL POLICE STATION, OONNUKAL,
ERANAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686693
3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
MUVATTUPUZHA, OFFICE OF THE DY.SP,
UZHAKKARAKAVU RD, THOTTUMKALPEEDIKA,
MUVATTUPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 686661
4 AJU
VALANALKUZHI HOUSE, OPPARA, NELLIMATTOM P.O,
2025:KER:52364
W.P.(C) No.24802/2024
:2:
KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN - 686693
5 NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SURATHKAL,
KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, SRINIVASNAGAR,
SURATHKAL, MANGALURU, KARNATAKA, PIN - 575025
* ADDL.6 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
KERALA, PIN 695033( IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 25-07-24 IN IA1/24)
* ADDL. 7 KAVALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NELLIMATTOM P.O,
KAVALANGAD, PIN 686693
(ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 ARE IMPLEADED
AS PER ORDER DATED 25-07-24 IN IA NO.2/2024)
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.M.JOSHI
SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
SMT.SIJI K.PAUL
SHRI.BONNY BABY
SMT.SRUTHI SUNILKUMAR
SHRI. C. GOKULKRISHNAN
SHRI.V.V.JOSHI
SRI.DHEERAJ A.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 30.06.2025, THE COURT ON 16.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:52364
W.P.(C) No.24802/2024
:3:
CR
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.24802 of 2024
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner took on lease certain land in
Kuttamangalam Village, Kothamangalam Taluk in Ernakulam
District for the purpose of conducting quarrying activities.
The petitioner states that some persons including the party
respondent are attempting to get rid of the petitioner in order
to start the quarrying operations themselves. They allege that
if quarrying operations are conducted by the petitioner, it
would damage a water tank owned by the Kerala Water
Authority. The tank is 145 metres away from the proposed
quarry.
2025:KER:52364
2. By Ext.P1 judgment in W.P.(C)
No.25341/2020, this Court had directed to conduct a scientific
study on the effect of quarrying operations on the said water
tank. The Senior Geologist, as per Ext.P2 report, has stated
that the proposed quarrying site is not vulnerable to
landslides in and around. The Senior Geologist reported that
the site condition is suitable for quarrying activities.
3. The petitioner paid requisite fee to the
National Institute of Technology, Surathkal, Karnataka to
conduct a scientific study in the proposed quarry area. On
02.07.2024, when the petitioner along with the inspection
team of NIT, Surathkal approached the quarrying area, the 4 th
respondent and his henchman prevented them from
conducting any inspection. The technical team from NIT,
Surathkal was not permitted to enter the premises. The
petitioner was attacked by the 4th respondent. The petitioner
submitted Ext.P6 petition to the police. The police did not
extend any help.
2025:KER:52364
4. The petitioner states that the official
respondents are duty bound to take action on the complaints
preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner would face huge
financial loss and hardship by the action of the 4 th respondent
and his henchman. The petitioner therefore seeks to direct
the respondents to give effective and adequate police
protection to the petitioner and the scientific survey team of
the 5th respondent in conducting inspection of the proposed
quarry site.
5. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit.
The 4th respondent stated that no quarrying activities can be
allowed in plantation land. The proposed enquiry site is a
plantation land. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A.
No.451/2018 has held that quarrying operations using
explosives within a radius of one kilometre of any bridge,
dam, check dam or any other work, structure or construction,
owned, controlled or maintained by the Government, a local
authority or any other authority, without any prior written
2025:KER:52364
permission, is not permissible. The water tank maintained by
the Kerala Water Authority would fall within the ambit of
Section 40(2) of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation
Act, 2003.
6. The existing water tank is having a capacity
of 2.5 lakhs litres. It is within hundred metre distance from the
quarry site. Furthermore, a new water tank is now proposed
which will be less than 50 metres away from the site. The
vehicle traffic to and from the quarry would cause damage to
the water pipes. The blasting operations would cause
damage to the water tank. Therefore, the proposed quarry
will be against the interest of the general public.
7. The 6th respondent-Kerala Water Authority
has filed a counter affidavit. The 6 th respondent stated that
as per order in W.P.(C) No.25341 of 2020, a joint scientific
study was conducted by the Geological Survey of India. As
per the report, they recommended to construct a new water
tank considering the age of the existing tank. At present,
2025:KER:52364
there is a tank of capacity 2.2 LL at Kottaramudy and was
constructed about 20 years back. Water is supplied from this
tank to four Wards of Pallarimangalam Panchayat and eight
Wards of Kavalangad Panchayat. The people in the above
two Panchayats are fully or partly depend Kerala Water
Authority for their daily needs. The existing tank is not
adequate to meet the present needs and hence another tank
of 2.5 LL is proposed under Jal Jeevan Mission aimed at
providing proper drinking water to all rural households in India
by 2024. Administrative sanction for JJM - WSS to
Kavalangad Panchayat was obtained on 18.09.2021 for
₹3,447 lakhs, even before the preliminary survey and other
studies conducted by the Kerala Water Authority and found
out that the tank location is most suitable.
8. Based on this distribution lines and other
components were designed and the work was tendered on
February, 2023 and the work was awarded on 22.03.2023.
The work has commenced and the work is progressing in
2025:KER:52364
Mission Mode, 50% of the fund utilised and the physical
progress is 60%. In the said work, there is construction of two
tanks and laying pipes of different sizes from 75 mm to 250
mm DI and total quantity is about 76 Kilometers. Out of two
tanks, construction of one tank is completed and most of the
pipes had been supplied and laid. W.P.(C) No.31245/2023
filed by the petitioner against the construction of water tank is
under consideration before this Court.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing
respondents 1 to 3 and the respective Standing Counsel
appearing for respondents 4, 6 and 7.
10. The petitioner took on lease the land
comprised in Survey Nos.306/1A/185/10/12, 46, 47, 52, 78,
79, 80, 81 and 82A of Kuttamangalam Village in
Kothamangalam Taluk for the purpose of conducting
quarrying activities. When the petitioner submitted an
application to the District Geologist for permission, the
2025:KER:52364
petitioner was informed that there is a water tank belonging to
the Kerala Water Authority located within 110 metres from the
quarrying site and therefore permission can be granted only
on production of a No Objection Certificate from the KWA.
11. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.33938/2017.
The said petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge.
The petitioner preferred W.A. No.451/2018, a Division Bench
of this Court, considered the issues in detail. The Division
Bench held that mining or quarrying operation using
explosives within a radius of one kilometre of any bridge,
dam, check dam or any other work, structure or construction,
owned, controlled or maintained by the Government, a local
authority, or any other authority without any prior written
permission, is not permissible. In the case in hand, a water
tank is maintained by the KWA and it would certainly fall
under the expression in Section 40(2) of the Kerala Irrigation
and Water Conservation Act, 2003 to include the Kerala
Water Authority also. The Division Bench therefore
2025:KER:52364
dismissed the appeal.
12. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this
Court again filing W.P.(C) No.25341/2020 seeking to direct
the Kerala Water Authority to conduct appropriate scientific
study in the said land for the purpose of issuing quarry
permit/licence. In the said writ petition, the Kerala Water
Authority submitted that they are ready to conduct a study
through Geological Survey of India, provided the petitioner
pays the requisite fee/expenses for conducting the study. The
writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment directing
the petitioner to pay the requisite fee.
13. The Geological Survey of India conducted a
study and submitted Ext.P2 report. Ext.P2 report stated that
the proposed quarrying site is not vulnerable to landslides in
and around. No settlements or schools, colleges, hospitals or
other important town are located in the 200 metres of the
quarry boundary. As a result, based on the site conditions at
the time of the field inspection, the site appears to be suitable
2025:KER:52364
for quarrying activities.
14. As further study was required to assess the
impact of the proposed quarry on the water tank of the Kerala
Water Authority, the petitioner approached the 5 th
respondent- National Institute of Technology (NIT),
Surathkal, Karnataka to conduct a scientific study by the NIT
in the proposed area. The petitioner made payment of
₹2,36,000/- on 27.06.2024. On 02.07.2024, when the
petitioner along with the inspection team of NIT, Surathkal
approached the quarrying site, the 4 th respondent and his
men prevented them from conducting any inspection. The
Technical Team from the NIT was not permitted to enter the
premises. The 4th respondent was attacked and he had to
avail treatment from the General Hospital, Muvattupuzha.
15. Though the petitioner approached police
authorities and requested to extend adequate police
protection, the police has chosen to do nothing. Hence, the
petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the
2025:KER:52364
competent among the respondents to give effective and
adequate police protection to the petitioner and the scientific
survey team of the 5th respondent in conducting inspection
and study in the proposed quarrying land.
16. The petitioner is an entrepreneur, who
proposes to start quarry activities in a land obtained by him
on lease. When the Geologist declined to issue permission
for want of No Objection Certificate from the Kerala Water
Authority, whose water tank was situated nearby, the
petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.33938/2017. The said writ petition
was dismissed. The petitioner filed W.A. No.451/2018
aggrieved by the judgment in W.P.(C) No.33938/2017. A
Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal holding
that declining permission by the Geologist is justified in the
absence of prior written permission of the Kerala Water
Authority which is maintaining a water tank nearby.
17. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this
Court filing W.P.(C) No.25341/2020 seeking to conduct a
2025:KER:52364
scientific study by the Geological Survey of India. The Kerala
Water Authority agreed to conduct the study at the expense
of the petitioner. This Court accordingly gave consequential
directions. The study was conducted and the findings of the
Senior Geologist are as follows:
1) The proposed quarry location at Survey
Nos.306/1A/185/10/12, 46, 47, 52, 78, 79, 80, 81
and 82A does not fall under the National Landslide
Susceptibility Mapping (NLSM) priority area-l for
landslide susceptibility studies as defined by the
Geological Survey of lndia.
2) The research region is classified as NLSM
priority area-ll because of its low-lying terrain and
with less landslide incidences compared to the
NLSM priority area-I.
3) There is an existing water tank in the mid-
slope area with an <180 angle slope and a slope
facet direction towards the west. The aerial distance
between the water tank and the quarry boundary is
approximately #144 m. Considering the age of the
water tank, it is also suggested to reconstruct a new
water tank with a vibration-resistant design as the
area lies in seismic zone-lll (Source: Project
Vasundhara (1994), Seismotectonic map, GSI, T-
VI). lt means the occurrence of earthquakes up to a
magnitude of 6 (intensity -VII) cannot be ruled out.
4) The landslide probability in the proposed
quarry site and their immediate vicinity are minimal
and can be avoided if necessary preventive
measures are taken. It is also important to ensure
optimum slope design by making benches as per
the prevailing mining rules for minimizing slope
instability issues and avoiding waterlogging
conditions on vulnerable slopes.
2025:KER:52364
5) The present study revealed that the
proposed quarry site and adjacent area slopes are
not been affected by any landslide incidences as per
the study of temporal data of the last l5 years of
Google Earth satellite imageries.
6) On prima facie, the present study revealed
that the site is not vulnerable to landslides in and
around (1 km buffer area). Since no settlements or
schools, colleges, hospitals or any other important
town are located in the 200 m of the quarry
boundary. As a result, based on the site condition at
the time of the field inspection, the site appears to
be suitable for quarrying activities.
7) However, to evaluate the effect of blasting
on the water tank located near the quarry site, on
the stability of any slopes, measuring the intensity of
the ground vibration due to blasting is required
besides the evaluation of physico-mechanical
properties of slope-forming material.
The study observed that to evaluate the effect of blasting on
the water tank and effect on the stability of any slopes,
measuring the intensity of the ground vibration due to blasting
is required besides the evaluation of physico-mechanical
properties of the slope-forming material.
18. For the said purpose, the petitioner has
approached the 5th respondent-NIT, Surathkal and remitted
requisite fee for conducting further study. The 4 th respondent
and persons under him are physically obstructing the study.
2025:KER:52364
In our country governed by Rule of Law, every citizen has a
right to do any business or pursue any avocation permissible
under law, following the provisions of law. Whether such an
avocation/business is to be permitted or not, is for the
competent authorities under the State to decide.
19. The petitioner wants to conduct a study by
the 5th respondent in order to obtain necessary NOCs and
Permissions for starting quarrying operations. The 4 th
respondent or anyone claiming under him cannot take law
into their hand and obstruct such study. If the 4 th respondent
uses physical force, the police authorities are bound to
protect the petitioner as long as the activity is not prohibited
by law, the failure of which will offend the fundamental right of
the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of
directing respondents 2 and 3 to give adequate police
protection to the petitioner and the scientific survey team of
2025:KER:52364
the 5th respondent in conducting inspection and study in the
proposed quarrying land.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/14.07.2025
2025:KER:52364
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24802/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
07/08/2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
Exhibit-P2 A COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SENIOR
GEOLOGIST, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA,
KERALA DATED 12/01/2024
Exhibit-P3 A COPY OF THE CHALLAN DRAWN ON FEDERAL
BANK IN FAVOR OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT
DATED NIL
Exhibit-P4 THE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 28/06/2024
Exhibit-P5 A COPY OF THE DIAGNOSIS SHEET OF THE
PETITIONER ISSUED BY CASUALTY, GENERAL
HOSPITAL, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED
03/07/2024
Exhibit-P6 A COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
04/07/2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT HEREIN
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit-R4(1) The reply dated 1-8-2019 received by
one Linson Thomas for his application
dated 4-7-2019 submitted under Right
to Information Act,2005
Exhibit-R4(2) The true copy of the judgment dated 6-
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit R7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
W.A.NO. 451/2018 DATED 06.12.2019
PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
