Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A.A. ALI, S/O. ABDUL KHADER versus THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


A.A. ALI, S/O. ABDUL KHADER v. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE - WP(C) No. 2291 of 2007(W) [2007] RD-KL 2640 (6 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 2291 of 2007(W)

1. A.A. ALI, S/O. ABDUL KHADER,
... Petitioner

2. A.A. PAREED, S/O. ABDUL KHADER,

Vs

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. SIBY, S/O. JOSE,

4. MATHACHAN, S/O. AUGUSTINE,

5. PETER, S/O. PAPPACHAN,

6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

7. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

8. THE GEOLOGIST,

9. MALAYATTOOR-NEELESWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,

10. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

For Petitioner :SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ (SR.)

For Respondent :SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

Dated :06/02/2007

O R D E R

J.B.KOSHY & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.

W.P.(C).NO.2291 OF 2007 (W)

Dated this the 6th day of February, 2007



J U D G M E N T

KOSHY,J.

This is a petition for police protection. According to the petitioner, petitioner has got all the required licence including licence from the Panchayat, Geologist and consent from the Pollution Control Board. The contention of the contesting respondents is that quarrying is done beyond the licensed premises. In the above circumstances, police is directed to grant protection, provided, quarrying is done only from seven ares of property specifically mentioned in Ext.P6 and all the conditions of the licence and consent are carried out. However, police should see that quarrying is not conducted beyond seven ares of property and if explosives are used that should be licensed and it should be done strictly according to the conditions imposed by the Director of explosives. If the petitioner applies for further licence, it is for the licencing W.P.(C).2291/2007 2 authority to consider the same after considering the contentions of the neighbouring parties and that should be decided untrammeled by any of the observations herein. However, if the respondents have got any further grievances, it is for them to approach the statutory authorities. With the above observations this writ petition is disposed of.

J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE

prp

J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.

O.P.NO. OF 2006 ()

J U D G M E N T

1th January, 2007


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.