SASIKUMARAN Vs. ABDURAHIMAN KARATTUCHALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Captioned writ appeals are filed by respondents 3 to 6 in W.P.(C) No.9764/2020 and petitioner in W.P.(C) No.24078/2020 challenging the interim orders passed by the learned single Judge dated 1.10.2020 and 19.11.2020. The order dated 19.11.2020 is a common order passed in both the writ petitions. Since the subject matter in the appeals relate to quarrying permit issued to the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9764/2020 and respondent 1 and 8 in the appeals respectively, we have heard them together and proposed to pass this common judgment.

(2.) W.P.(C) No.9764/2020 is filed by a quarry operator namely Abdurehiman seeking to quash Ext.P9 order passed by the Senior Geologist, District Office Mining & Geology department, Manjeri, Malappuram District dated 2.3.2020, whereby it is stated that environmental clearance was issued to the writ petitioner to the area covered by the application on 26.4.2018, and thereafter in 2018 and 2019 land sliding and land slipping have been occurred in Malappuram District. So also it is stated that on examination of the complaint submitted by the local residents including the Pulikkalakandy Harijan Colony people and on inspection of the site, it is convinced that there are seepages on the back side of the houses of residents of the valley of hillock and if mining is conducted on the hillock area, it will become unstable and there are high possibilities of natural calamities. Therefore, it is stated that that is the reason why the permit was refused as per reference No.5 letter dated 24.12.2019.

(3.) It is further stated that, during the inspection conducted on 12.12.2019, it is convinced that the condition of the area was not like that of the time when the environmental clearance was issued and also the District Collector reported before the High Court of Kerala that there is no possibility of land sliding and there is no need for further site inspection. It is also stated that as seepages are seen in the area, still the area is under the threat of landslide if the laterite mining is conducted and hence issuance of a mining permit is not possible. Accordingly the application submitted by the writ petitioner dated 17.6.2019 for laterite extraction permit is refused. Apparently the said order was passed by the Senior Geologist on the basis of the direction issued by a writ court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.141/2020 dated 7.1.2020. The 2nd relief sought for in the writ petition by quarry owner is a writ of mandamus commanding the District Geologist i.e., the 1 st respondent in the writ petition, to renew the quarrying permit applied by him upon reconsidering Ext.P4 application and Ext.P8 submission made by the writ petitioner, after obtaining a report from the 2nd respondent Soil Conservation Officer. Interim relief sought for therein was a direction to the District Geologist - 1st respondent, to renew the quarrying permit to the petitioner as applied by him, upon reconsidering Exts.P4 & P8 after obtaining a report from the Soil Conservation Officer, the 2 nd respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition. In the said writ petition, appellants in W.A No.1546/2020 were impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 6 after filing of the writ petition.