RAVEENDRAN M Vs. M A ASHRAF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ appeals are preferred against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 03.04.2013 in W.P.(C) Nos.19133 of 2009, 11522 of 2012 and 13898 of 2012. The appellants in Writ Appeal No.1434 of 2013 are the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.19133 of 2009 and party respondents 6 to 10 and 5 to 9 respectively, in the other two writ petitions. Respondents 1 and 2 in the Writ Appeals are the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.11522 of 2012 and 13898 of 2012 and respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C) No.19133 of 2009. Even though W.P.(C) No.17347 of 2009 was filed by the 1st respondent challenging Ext. P23 order therein, in view of the rejection of licence by the Grama Panchayat, the counsel had submitted before the learned Single Judge that the said writ petition has become infructuous and accordingly, the said writ petition was dismissed.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge has disposed of W.P.(C) No.13898 of 2012 directing the District Collector, Palakkad to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the party respondents herein as well as the appellants regarding the request to allow manufacturing of bricks utilizing the clay already stocked in the property of the 1st respondent. So far as W.P.(C) No.11522 of 2012 is concerned, the learned Single Judge has granted liberty to the petitioner therein, who is the wife of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13898 of 2012 to approach the District Geologist, seeking permission for excavation of sand in order to start fish farming. W.P.(C) No.19133 of 2009 filed by the appellant herein was disposed of granting them liberty to raise their objections before the authorities concerned against the grant of permissions. It is aggrieved by these directions that these writ appeals are preferred by the appellants.

(3.) IN view of the slight difference in the factual situations arising in the cases, we think it appropriate to briefly refer to the facts of these cases and the reliefs sought for, separately.