TASNA MINES Vs. CHITHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows: The petitioner obtained an NOC from the Government for operating a quarry for the purpose of supplying materials for the Vizhinjam Port Project. After grant of the NOC, knowing fully well that the property was to be used for a quarry, the 3rd respondent purchased 30 ares of property, adjacent to the quarrying area, for a paltry sum of Rs.2 lakhs. The only intention is to compel the petitioner to purchase the property for an exorbitant amount. When petitioner refused to yield, 3rd respondent threatened that he will ensure that petitioner's unit is not permitted to operate. Even though the 3 rd respondent attempted to challenge Ext.P-1 NOC before this Court, the same did not fructify. Thereupon he has come up with an ingenious method of constructing a temporary shed adjacent to the property and thereby allege violation of distance criteria by the petitioner. The Panchayat has also issued building number and ownership certificate to the 3 rd respondent treating the temporary shed as a residential building. On coming to know that the Panchayat was misled into issuing the building number, petitioner filed Ext.P-7 complaint before the Panchayat seeking cancellation of building number. The complaint is pending with the Panchayat. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent is raising frivolous allegations against the functioning of the unit on the ground that the unit is functioning by violating the distance criteria from the temporary shed. The only attempt of the 3rd respondent by constructing a building adjacent to petitioner's property and to thereafter complain before the authorities that the petitioner is carrying out quarrying activities adjacent to a building and to thus close down petitioner's unit. It is in the light of the abovesaid averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers: "

(2.) Heard Sri.Enoch David Simon Joel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Siju Kamalasanan, learned Standing Counsel for the Chithara Grama Panchayat, appearing for R-1 & R-2. In the nature of the order proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to contesting respondent No.3 will stand dispensed with.

(3.) Without getting into the merits of the controversy in any manner it is ordered that, the 2nd respondent Secretary of Chithara Grama Panchayat may examine the matters in Ext.P-7 representation dated 15.7.2020 submitted by the petitioner, and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, may deal with the matter in accordance with law so as to pass orders thereon without much delay, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.