SATHIYAMMA Vs. SREEKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As these Writ Appeals are preferred against the common judgment dated 10.04.2013 in W.P.(C).Nos.754/2013 and 1038/2013, they are taken up together for disposal.

(2.) The appellant in both the writ appeals is the same. While she was the 4th respondent in W.P.(C).No.754/2013, she was also the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.1038/2013. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their status in W.A.No.706/2013 arising from W.P.(C).No.754/2013.

(3.) W.P.(C).No.754/2013 was filed by the 1st respondent challenging Ext.P9 order of the RDO. The 1st respondent had applied for and obtained a quarrying permit for extraction of laterite building stone from an extent of 15.77 Ares (38.5 Cents) of land in Sy.No.498/4 of Kallalibhagam Village. Ext.P1 is the said permit issued by the Senior Geologist, Mining and Geology Department. The said permit was valid upto 18.07.2013. The appellant owned property on the eastern side of the property covered by Ext.P1 permit and she had filed several complaints against the mining activities carried on by the 1st respondent. When no action was forthcoming on those complaints, she preferred a writ petition that culminated in Ext.P3 judgment whereby the RDO, Tahsildar and Geologist were directed to conduct an inspection and ascertain whether the 1st respondent was complying with the terms of Ext.P1 permit issued to him.