IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20169 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDA PILLAI, ANAYADI P.O., NOW RESIDING AT PARAMELTHARAYIL, THAMARAKULAM, ALLEPPEY. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.20169/2009-M ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the third respondent in issuing cash memorandum and pass as per Rule 48 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1967, without any reason. He is the owner of a landed property measuring 42.5 cents comprised in Survey No.276/5 of Sooranadu South Village. It is averred in the writ petition that the first respondent accorded sanction to remove 15 layers of laterite stone from the property of the petitioner as per Ext.P2 order. The third respondent did not issue cash memorandum to the petitioner. Thereafter, for the said purpose, he has been moving various authorities. The petitioner was the plaintiff in O.S.No.3/2000 on the file of Munsif Court, Sasthamcotta, wherein a decree was passed in his favour as per Ext.P3. That dispute was in respect of his right over the plaint schedule property and for an injunction for restraining the defendants from trespassing into the property and committing any waste. 2. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out therein that contrary to the permit granted for extraction of 250 MT, the petitioner W.P.(C). No.20169/2009 -:2:- violated the permit condition and extracted 16 times more the quantity permitted to be mined. There were large scale complaints from the neighbouring people before the District Collector against the unauthorised mining carried out by the petitioner and, accordingly, the District Collector ordered the third respondent to make an on-the-spot assessment of the alleged excess extraction of laterite building stones extracted by the petitioner. 3. It is averred that when the inspection was conducted it was found that the petitioner had extracted 3989 MT of laterite building stone against the permit for 250 MT. This inspection was conducted in the presence of the petitioner on 02/02/2008. It is pointed out that necessary action has already been initiated against the petitioner for unauthorisedly mining beyond the permitted quantity, and there is no scope to issue a further permit. 4. In the light of the facts pointed out above, the petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs in the writ petition. In the light of the various averments contained in the counter affidavit, the third respondent will communicate the decision thereof within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. W.P.(C). No.20169/2009 -:3:- The petitioner is free to challenge the same if the order is adverse to him, before the appropriate authority. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms