Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 282 (KER)

Mohammed Haji v. District Geologist

2013-03-23

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

body2013
JUDGMENT : 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. In the said circumstances, Ext.P2 is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to pursue the operation so long as Ext.P1 permit granted by the first respondent is valid and subsists. This however, will not prevent the competent authorities to proceed against the petitioner, if at all there is any infringement of the statutory prescription or the terms of the permit granted to the petitioner. In view of the interception made by the second respondent as per Bxt.P2 the petitioner was virtually prevented from carrying on the operation and complete the same within the permitted period covered by Ext.P1. In view of the interception made by the second respondent as per Bxt.P2 the petitioner was virtually prevented from carrying on the operation and complete the same within the permitted period covered by Ext.P1. In the said circumstances, it will be open for the petitioner to seek for extension of time by filing an application before the first respondent, upon which the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed for granting relief to the requisite extent without delay. Writ Petition is disposed of.