Petitioners are persons who complained about the illegal quarrying operations being conducted by the party respondent herein. As the matters stand now, it is an admitted fact that the party respondent does not have any valid licence or permission for conducting the said quarrying operations. 2. In these circumstances, the relief sought for in these writ petitions, to that extent, has become infructuous. Hence, no further orders are required to be passed in that regard.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.7559/2014 submits that the party respondent is liable to fill up the pit from which the quarrying operations were being done as it has a depth about 60 feet. This Court cannot issue any such direction to the statutory authorities, as it is for the petitioner to approach the statutory authority and obtain necessary directions in that regard.
4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the 12th respondent in both the writ petitions would contend that the licence/permission in favour of the 12th respondent was cancelled without notice and subsequent to the filing of W.P. (C).No.1322 of 2014. I do not intend to enter into the controversy in this regard, as it shall always be open for the 12th respondent to approach the competent authority and seek further permission/licence, if he intends to pursue the quarrying operations in the land in question.
With the above observations, these writ petitions are disposed of, leaving open all contentions of the parties to be adjudicated before the appropriate forum at the appropriate time.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE (JUDGE) DSV/31/05