S MOHANLAL Vs. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is residing near to a quarry operated by the 10th respondent. The petitioner filed complaints before the Revenue Divisional Officer complaining that the 10th respondent is conducting an unauthorized quarry, without obtaining appropriate licenses and permits as required under law. Pursuant thereto the Revenue Divisional Officer passed Ext. P10 order, by which he directed the 10th respondent to stop the operation of the quarry. The 10th respondent filed an appeal before the District Collector, who by Ext. P11 set aside Ext. P10 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer on the mere ground that the functioning of the quarry does not in any way affect the petitioner insofar as he is residing beyond 50 mtrs. from the quarry. Petitioner submits that the District Collector himself has found that the quarry is being operated without a panchayath license and an explosives license. After having found that the 10th respondent himself has admitted that he does not have a Panchayat license and explosives license, the District Collector could not have interfered with the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, is the contention of the petitioner. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) Despite service of notice, the 10th respondent has not chosen to file any counter affidavit in this writ petition. As such, the averments in the writ petition stands uncontroverted. The other respondents have also not chosen to file any counter affidavit. Consequently all the averments in the writ petition stands uncontroverted.

(3.) I have considered the contentions of the petitioner. I have gone through Ext. P11 order of the District Collector. I am surprised that a District Collector in this State has the temerity to pass such an order after finding that the 10th respondent himself has admitted that the quarry is being operated without a panchayath license and explosive license, when it is the bounden duty of the District Collector to prohibit such illegal quarrying operations when brought to his notice. Instead he has chosen to permit an illegal quarry on the mere ground that the quarry does not affect the petitioner in this writ petition. The Collector's action has to be condemned in no uncertain terms. When the District Collector is satisfied that the quarry is being operated without all appropriate licenses particularly an explosives license, he should have taken special care to stop the quarrying. Instead he has interfered with the direction of the Revenue Divisional Officer to stop the quarry. The District Collector would do well not to repeat such action at least in future. In view of the above findings, I have no hesitation to hold that Ext. P11 is not sustainable and accordingly Ext. P11 is quashed and Ext. P10 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is restored.