IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19328 of 2010(M) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- RAVINDRAN, S/O.SANKUNNI, VELIYATHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NENMANIKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY MR.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR, ADVOCATE. MS.P.R.REENA, ADVOCATE. MS.P.A.ANITHA, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THRISSUR-680312. 2. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PUDUKKAD, CHENGALLUR P.O., THRISSUR-680312. 3. GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THRISSUR-20. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, CHENGALLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR-680312. BY MR. P. NARAYANAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19328 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner and in possession of 52 cents of land in survey No.461/4 of Chengallur village. The property is lying idle for more than 20 years. According to the petitioner, no paddy cultivation has been conducted in the property in the recent past. 2. For utilising the property for mining clay, the petitioner had moved the authorities concerned and ultimately, the Government passed Exhibit P1 order identifying various properties including the property of the petitioner in Survey No.461/4 as fit for mining clay. The petitioner had permitted the owner of M/s.Vijayalakshmi Ceramics for mining clay from his property. Thereafter, an application has been filed before the W.P.(C) No.19328/2010 2 Geologist, Thrissur for licence under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Many of the nearby lands have also been included in Exhibit P1. Finally, the Revenue Divisional Officer referred all these cases to the Agricultural Officer who submitted Exhibits P2 to P2(b) reports stating that there is no objection for mining clay. 3. But, as regards the property of the petitioner, an objection has been taken presumably based on a complaint raised by a third party. Exhibit P3 is the report by the Agricultural Officer regarding the property of the petitioner. It is submitted that because of the endorsement in Exhibit P3, the Geologist has not issued licence to the petitioner's property. The petitioner has, therefore, approached the Agricultural Officer by Exhibit P5 representation. 4. The main prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P5 within a time frame. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take a decision on Exhibit P5, after hearing the petitioner, within a W.P.(C) No.19328/2010 3 period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp