Secretary vs Alwyn Jose

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J

The second respondent in the writ petition is the review petitioner. Parties and documents are referred to in this order, as they appear in the writ

petition.

The petitioner is a contractor undertaking works of the Public Works Department. The petitioner took a land on lease for the purpose of erecting a

hot mix plant for executing a road work. Thereupon, he obtained Ext.P3 permission from the Panchayat in terms of Rule 68 of the Kerala Panchayat

Building Rules, 2019 (the Rules) and Ext.P4 consent to establish the hot mix plant from the Pollution Control Board in terms of the Water (Prevention

and Control of Pollution Act), 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act), 1981. It was alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that

later, when he was carrying on the levelling work of the leasehold for the purpose of erecting the hot mix plant, the police intervened and seized the

vehicles and excavator used by the petitioner for the said purpose alleging that the petitioner ought to have obtained permission of the Geologist for

carrying out the levelling work. The petitioner, in the circumstances, preferred Ext.P6 representation before the Geologist seeking permission to level

the leasehold. The writ petition was filed thereafter, alleging that Ext.P6 representation is not being considered by the Geologist.

When the writ petition was taken up for hearing on 26.11.2020, the learned Government Pleader submitted that permission of the Geologist is not

required for levelling the land, if the petitioner does not wish to remove any mineral from the land. It was however, pointed out that the petitioner may

require development permit from the Panchayat for carrying out the levelling work.

In the context of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the petitioner does

not wish to remove any mineral from the land.

In the aforesaid circumstances, this court took the view that in so far as the petitioner has been granted permission by the Panchayat under Rule 68

of the Rules for the purpose of erecting the hot mix plant, the Panchayat would have certainly insisted the petitioner to obtain development permit for

carrying out the levelling work, if the petitioner was obliged to obtain development permit for the said purpose, and consequently, disposed of the writ

petition interdicting the Geologist from interfering with the erection and operation of hot mix plant by the petitioner in the land referred to in the writ

petition, so long as the petitioner does not remove any mineral from the land. The second respondent seeks review of this judgment.

The case set out by the second respondent in the review petition is that under the shade of Ext.P3 permit, the petitioner excavated large quantity of

red earth and blasted out large quantity of granite stones from the land without obtaining development permit from the Panchayat in terms of Rule 4 of

the Rules as required by Rule 10 of the Rules.

Heard the learned counsel for the second respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

As noted, the main ground on which the second respondent seeks review of the judgment is that the petitioner excavated red earth and blasted out

granite stones in large quantities from the land; that the petitioner was required to obtain development permit from the Panchayat for carrying out the

said work and that he has not obtained development permit for the said purpose under the shade of Ext.P3 permit. The aforesaid, according to me, is

not a ground to seek review of the judgment, for, the only point considered in the judgment sought to be reviewed was as to whether permission of the

Geologist is required for carrying out the levelling work of the land. The second respondent has no case that permission of the Geologist was required

for the purpose of levelling the land.

In the circumstances, the review petition is disposed of making it clear that the judgment sought to be reviewed does not preclude the second

respondent from enforcing the Rules, if the petitioner carries on any activity violating the same.