Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BIJU TOM, MOOTHASSERIL HOUSE versus THE KAROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BIJU TOM, MOOTHASSERIL HOUSE v. THE KAROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT - WP(C) No. 19545 of 2006(B) [2006] RD-KL 2365 (4 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 19545 of 2006(B)

1. BIJU TOM, MOOTHASSERIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE KAROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.GANGESH

For Respondent :SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC, SC,KAROOR G.PANCHAYAT

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :04/12/2006

O R D E R

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.

W.P.(C)NO. 19545 of 2006 Dated this 4th day of December, 2006

JUDGMENT

The Executive Engineer ( Buildings),Kottayam and the Geologist, Kottayam District are impleaded as additional respondents 2 and 3 in this writ petition. The Registry will carry out necessary corrections in the cause title.

2. Having regard to the arguments addressed before me by Sri.K.B.Gangesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sunil Cyriac, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Panchayat, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with the following directions:-

3. The Additional respondents will conduct a technical study of the impact which the blasting operations conducted by the writ petitioner in his quarry will have on the reservoir constructed by the first respondent Panchayat ( the reservoir shown in Ext.P12) and furnish report before the first respondent at their earliest and at any rate within one month of the additional respondents receiving a copy of this judgment. The WPC No.19545/2006 2 additional 1st respondent (Executive Engineer) will also report regarding the estimated cost for constructing a reservoir which exactly identical to Ext.P12. The Panchayat, on receiving a reports, will consider Ext.P14 application for licence, hear the petitioner and take a decision. Even if the reports support the stand of the Panchayat that blasting in petitioner's quarry will endanger Ext.P12 reservoir, then also if the petitioner is prepared to furnish Bank guarantee to the Panchayat for the estimated cost of Ext.P12 reservoir, the Panchayat will consider granting of licence to the petitioner and at any rate Panchayat will take a decision on Ext.P14 within one month of receiving reports from the additional respondents. All further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P16 will be closed by the Panchayat in view of the directions as above. It is needless to mention that the additional respondents will conduct inspections for assessing the impact of the blasting on the reservoir with notice to the petitioner and also to the first respondent Panchayat. It is also clarified that the entire cost for assessment of the impact of the blasting on the reservoir will be borne by the petitioner who will be liable to deposit amounts in WPC No.19545/2006 3 advance upon directions by the additional respondents. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE Judge dpk


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.