PURUSHOTHAMAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the writ petitions are taken up together since the subject matter is the same.

(2.) IN W.P.(C) No.6145/2011, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26631/2012 is the 6th respondent (even though there is slight difference in the name and addresses). The allegation mainly raised in W.P.(C) No.6145/2011 is that the quarry owned by the 6th respondent is nearby the residential houses of the petitioners and others and the 6th respondent used to blast granite stones by using dangerous explosives which has led to the causing of damage to the properties of the petitioners in the writ petition as well as to the local residents.

(3.) THIS Court in W.P.(C) No.6145/2011 passed an interim order dated 28.02.2011 which reads as follows: