IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 10956 of 2006(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. J.VISWANATHAN, KALLUMOOTTIL HOUSE, KARALI JUNCTION P.O., KOTHAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. J.RAVEENDRAN, KALLUMOOTTIL HOUSE, KARALI JUNCTION P.O., KOTHAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. S.VIJAYAN, CHARUVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, KARALI JUNCTION P.O., KOTHAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DISTRICT OFFICE, "KESAVA NIKETHAN", ASHRAMAM, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SRI.N.GOPI, LAKSHMI VILASOM, KIDAPPURAM VADAKKU PAURA SAMITHY, MANDROTHURUTHU, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADDL. 4. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ON I.A. NO. 5365 OF 2007 DATED 9.4.07 ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R3 SRI.HARISH GOPINATH FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K. RAVIKRISHNAN FOR R1, R2 & R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPIES OF THE QUARRYING PERMITS DATED 28.7.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30.4.2005 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KOLLAM GEOLOGIST, 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 27.5.2005 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND APPELLATE ORDER DATED 11.7.2005 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 2.8.2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2005 IN G.O. (Rt) NO.1058/05/ID PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 34211 OF 2005 DATED 23.12.2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON EXT.P5 DATED 24.3.2006 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 10956 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners are challenging Ext.P8 order whereunder the Government has interfered with the mining lease granted by the second respondent to mine sand from Mundrothuruthu near Kollam. Mining permit is granted for mining 2000 MT each by each of the petitioners from their land for construction of fish pond. The contention of the third respondent is that petitioners are not interested to start any fish pond but the purpose is only to mine and sell the sand from the property. According to him, District Collector got report prepared by Tahsildar, who after local inspection, reported the condition of the land as thoroughly flooded and further mining will lead to problem for the inhabitants. On going through Ext.P8, I find that Government gave opportunity to the petitioners to establish their bona fides in starting the fish pond by getting clearance from the concerned authorities under the Fisheries Department. It is further stated that clearance has to be obtained from the authority under the Kerala Land Ulitisation Order for conversion of paddy land to agricultural land. I do not think there is anything wrong with the Government order because if the petitioners 2 are bona fide interested in starting fish pond they have to get approval from the Fisheries Department. Besides this, it is for the revenue authorities to decide the character of the land and if Land Utilisation Order applies, consider the petitioners' request for mining for starting fish pond. W.P.C. is accordingly disposed of directing the petitioners to produce project report before the concerned officers of the Fisheries Department for their study and report as to whether it is feasible to start fish pond ad if so grant approval with terms and conditions. If the land is not utilised or fit for cultivation then revenue authorities will not raise any objection for conversion of the land to fish farm. However, in view of the allegation by the third respondent that main purpose is to mine and sell sand I impose condition that if mining is permitted for starting fish farm, sand extracted should be locally stored and should be allowed to be removed only after starting the fish farm so that if fish farm fails, the same sand will be utilised for filling up the land. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3