Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Kerala
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

S.Unnikrishnan vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala|27 May, 2014
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Petitioner has approached this Court inter alia seeking the following reliefs:
“i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, direction or orders directing the 5th respondent to conduct a survey to demarcate the 700 meter radius from the boundary of Pandavanpara.
ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, direction or orders directing the 2nd respondent to ban all illegal mining activities within 700 Meters from boundary of Pandavanpara.”
2. According to the petitioner, he had submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent to prevent illegal mining activities in Perumkadavila village especially around Pandavapara which is a historical monument. Since no action was taken in the matter, he filed W.P.C.No.18249 of W.P.C.No.20810/2013 2 2012 to consider Ext.P1. In the meantime, the Perumkadavila Grama Panchayath Committee had taken a decision to stop all illegal mining activities within 500 Meters from the boundary of Pandavanpara. Subsequently, on the basis of the directions issued by the Panchayat Committee, it was intended to demarcate the said area. But, according to the petitioner, the area has not been demarcated and now the request of the petitioner by way of Ext.P11 representation to the 5th respondent is to conduct a survey to demarcate 700 meter radius from the boundary of Pandavanpara.
3. Though the petitioner had narrated the geological importance of Pandavanpara, the petitioner is unable to show any material or provision of law by which the 5th respondent is under obligation to consider Ext.P11 representation. 5th respondent has no authority to demarcate any area as a non-mining area. If at all such a power is vested in any authority, the petitioner will have to W.P.C.No.20810/2013 3 approach such authorities who can make such restrictions only under powers vested on them by way of any statutory provisions. The petitioner is unable to point out any such statutory provisions and therefore I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to seek any relief in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

S.Unnikrishnan vs State Of Kerala

Court

High Court Of Kerala

JudgmentDate
27 May, 2014
Judges
  • A M Shaffique
Advocates
  • Sri
  • M R Sasith