Santhosh and Others vs State of Kerala and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Oct 27, 2023

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1348606

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1348606
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.S.Dias
Decided On: Oct 27, 2023
Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet/213/2011

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Santhosh and Others

Respondent

State of Kerala and Others

Excerpt

.....and geology district office, mini civil station, thodupuzha p.o., idukki district, pin-685 584. sr public prosecutor smt seetha sthis criminal revision petition having come up for admission on 27.10.2023, the court on the same day delivered the following: crl.r.p no.213 of 2011 2 dated this the 27th day of october, 2023orderthe revision petition is filed challenging the orderpassed in cmp no.5/2010 by the court of the sub divisional magistrate, idukki, making the conditionalorder passed under section 133 (1) (a) (b) of the criminalprocedure code (in short, ‘code’), absolute under section 138 of the code.2. as per the impugned order, the learned sub divisional magistrate had restrained the revision petitioners from carrying out the quarrying operations in the property in question, on the ground that it was dangerous to the environment and disturbed the ecological balance.3. the revision petition was filed as early as on 20.1.2011.4. heard; sri. p.m. ziraj, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and the learned crl.r.p no.213 of 2011 3 public prosecutor appearing for the respondents.5. the learned counsel appearing for the revisionpetitioners submitted that the revision petition has turned infructuous because the permit that was granted to the revision petitioners has expired. therefore, even if the impugned order is vacated, the revision petitioners will not be in a position to carryout the mining activity. hence, the revision petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. the said submission is recorded.6. in the light of the above submission, i am of the view that nothing further survives in the revision petition. resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. sd/- c.s.dias, judge rmm27/10/2023

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1945 CRL.REV.PET NO. 213 OF 2011 AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 5/2010 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, IDUKKI REVISION PETITIONERS/COUNTER PETITIONER NOS.4,5 &7: 1 SANTHOSH N.S, S/O SAHADEVAN AGED 28 YEARS, NALATHOTTIYIL HOUSE, KEERITHODU P.O., 2 MOHANAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN AGED 45 YEARS, PANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KEERITHODU P.O., 3 RAJAN, SON OF VARGHESE AGED 58 YEARS, MOLEL HOUSE, NEENDAPAR P.O., NERYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENTS/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM. 2 THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE IDUKKI, COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA, PAINAVU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 553. 3 THE GEOLOGIST MINING AND GEOLOGY DISTRICT OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, THODUPUZHA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 584. SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT SEETHA S

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.R.P NO.213 OF 2011 2 Dated this the 27th day of October, 2023

ORDER

The revision petition is filed challenging the order

passed in CMP No.5/2010 by the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Idukki, making the conditional

order passed under Section 133 (1) (a) (b) of the Criminal

Procedure Code (in short, ‘Code’), absolute under Section 138 of the Code.

2. As per the impugned order, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate had restrained the revision petitioners from carrying out the quarrying operations in the property in question, on the ground that it was dangerous to the environment and disturbed the ecological balance.

3. The revision petition was filed as early as on 20.1.2011.

4. Heard; Sri. P.M. Ziraj, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and the learned CRL.R.P NO.213 OF 2011 3 Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision

petitioners submitted that the revision petition has turned infructuous because the permit that was granted to the revision petitioners has expired. Therefore, even if the impugned order is vacated, the revision petitioners will not be in a position to carryout the mining activity. Hence, the revision petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. The said submission is recorded.

6. In the light of the above submission, I am of the view that nothing further survives in the revision petition. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm27/10/2023

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2023 Same Parties Santhosh and Others vs State of Kerala and Others Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.S.Dias