MATHAI JOHN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1996 of 2015, being a quarrying lease holder to mine and extract building stones, laid challenge against Ext. P10 notice issued by the second respondent. His principal contention is that though he has all the requisite permissions under law to carry on the quarrying operations, the second respondent has directed the petitioner not to use any machinery operated by electrical or any other power until the petitioner obtains permit under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act ('the Act' for brevity). According to him Ext. P10 is illegal and arbitrary. The third respondent therein, said to be a resident in the vicinity, filed W.P.(C) No. 14951 of 2014 to restrain the petitioner from carrying on the quarrying operations unless and until he obtains the necessary licence and environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, in terms of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2012 AIR(SC) 1386.

(2.) Since both the issues are interconnected and the proceedings in both the writ petitions are between the same parties, this Court has felt it desirable to dispose of both the writ petitions through a common judgment. I take, for case of reference and expression, the facts as pleaded in W.P.(C) No. 1996 of 2015, as well as the exhibits filed therein, as the basis for the discussion of the matter, apart from adverting to the parties as have been arrayed in the said writ petition.

(3.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner is said to have been issued with all the requisite licences, viz., Exts. P1 to P5 by different statutory authorities; however, the second respondent has still been obstructing the petitioner from carrying on the quarrying operations by issuing Ext. P10 notice directing the petitioner not to use any power driven machinery. The petitioner avers that Ext. P10 was issued by the second respondent only to ward off the threat of contempt in Con. Case (C) No. 1378 of 2014 initiated by the third respondent on the allegation that the second respondent did riot, comply with Ext. P9 interim direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14951 of 2014.'