MOHAMMED HAJI Vs. DISTRICT GEOLOGIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner wanted to level his property removing the excess earth for the purpose of developing a parking area for vehicles in front of the auditorium constructed by him. It was accordingly, that necessary sanction was sought for and after considering the merits involved, Bxt.P1 permit was issued by the first respondent on 11.3.2013. On the strength of Bxt.P1 permit, the petitioner was pursuing the levelling operations, when the same was intercepted by the second respondent issuing Ext.P2 stop memo dated 15.3.2013 in view of some complaint from the local public. This in turn is under challenge in this Writ Petition stating that there is absolutely no right, power or competence for the second respondent to have issued Ext.P2.

(2.) Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits on instructions that, on enquiry, it has been revealed that the petitioner is not maintaining any of the relevant records to be maintained in accordance with the relevant provisions of the KMMC Rules. On going through the materials on record, it is seen that Ext.P2 stop memo has been issued by the second respondent merely on the basis of some complaint from the local public. The petitioner has been permitted to remove the red earth from his property by virtue of Ext.P1 order passed by the first respondent/competent authority. No grievance can be there for anybody, unless the condition, if at all any, attached to Ext.P1 is not satisfied or if there is any excess extraction or such other adverse circumstances contemplated under the relevant provisions of law. Merely for the reason that some of the local inhabitants are not happy with the exercise pursued by the petitioner cannot be a reason to have intercepted the same, so long as Ext.P1 permit stands.