Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

V.Sudhakaran vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board

V.Sudhakaran vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 28, 2022
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1525964

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
WP(C)/12518/2015

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

V.Sudhakaran

Respondent

Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice shaji p.chaly friday, the 28th day of october 2022 / 6th karthika, 1944 wp(c) no. 12518 of 2015 petitioner v.sudhakaran aged 61 years rohini sadanam, t.c 54/928,nemom p.o,thiruvananthapuram sri.bechu kurian thomas sri.enoch david simon joel respondents1 kerala state pollution control board pattom p.o,thiruvananthapuram-695 004 represented by the chief enviornmental engineer. 2 kerala state pollution control board district office, t c 12/96(4,5),plamoodu,pattom p.o,thiruvananthapuram-695 004 3 pallichal grama panchayat vedivachankovil p.o, balaramapuram,thiruvananthapruam-695 501 represented by its secretary 4 secretary pallichal grama panchayat,vedivachankovil p.o,balaramapuram,thiruvananthapuram-695 501 sc sri.t.naveen sri. m.ajay, sc, sri.t.k.ananda krishnanthis writ petition (civil) having come up for admission on 28.10.2022, the court on the same day delivered the following: wp(c).12518/2015 shaji p.chaly. j. ---------------------- w.p.(c).12518 of 2015 ----------------------- dated : 28th october, 2022judgmentthis writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :- issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to interfere with the quarrying and crusher operations being carried on by the petitioner, on the strength of ext.p1 to ext.p1(b) quarrying leases.2. today when the matter was taken up, sri.cimilc.kottalil, representing counsel for the petitioner sri.enoch david simon joel, submitted that the writ petition has become infructuous. the writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. sd/- shaji p.chaly, judge mrcs/28.10.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 12518 OF 2015 PETITIONER V.SUDHAKARAN AGED 61 YEARS ROHINI SADANAM, T.C 54/928,NEMOM P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL RESPONDENTS

1 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PATTOM P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004 REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ENVIORNMENTAL ENGINEER. 2 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DISTRICT OFFICE, T C 12/96(4,5),PLAMOODU,PATTOM P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004 3 PALLICHAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT VEDIVACHANKOVIL P.O, BALARAMAPURAM,THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM-695 501 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 4 SECRETARY PALLICHAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT,VEDIVACHANKOVIL P.O,BALARAMAPURAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 501 SC SRI.T.NAVEEN SRI. M.AJAY, SC, SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).12518/2015 SHAJI P.CHALY. J. ---------------------- W.P.(C).12518 of 2015 ----------------------- Dated : 28th October, 2022

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief :- Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to interfere with the quarrying and crusher operations being carried on by the petitioner, on the strength of Ext.P1 to Ext.P1(b) quarrying leases.

2. Today when the matter was taken up, Sri.Cimil

C.Kottalil, representing counsel for the petitioner Sri.Enoch David Simon Joel, submitted that the writ petition has become infructuous. The Writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. Sd/- SHAJI P.CHALY, Judge Mrcs/28.10.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial