IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 3911 of 2010(S) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SADANANDAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN, AGED 65 YEARS, KAVUKALATHIL HOUSE, KODAKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 4. CHIEF OPERATIONS MANAGER (SOUTH), BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.NO.1, RANGATHAN GARDEN, OFF: 11TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 040. SR. G.P. SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1 TO R3 ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, AG. C.J. & C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.3911 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010. JUDGMENT Raman, Ag. C.J. The petitioner is an individual. He is said to be aggrieved by the proposed action of the 4th respondent-Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd. in acquiring the paddy field for the purpose of setting up huge petroleum tanks by filling the paddy field. He seeks for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to permit the filling of the paddy field as mentioned in Ext.P1 representation. Ext.P1 is a representation made to the Chief Minister. The respondents arrayed are State of Kerala, District Collector, Kozhikode, District Collector, Malappuram and the Bharath Petroleum Corporation. In order that a mandamus could be issued, there should be a demand. The demand now made is to the Chief Minister. If there is any conversion of a paddy field by filling the land and there is any violation under the Land Utilisation Order or under any other Act, the appropriate authority before whom representation should be given is the District Collector or 2 Revenue Divisional Officer as the case may be. It is not as though the Land Utilisation Order prohibits the conversion of a paddy field, but only prohibits that such conversion should be with previous permission of the authorities. Whether the authorities have given permission or not, is not known to us. In such circumstances, unless such a complaint is made before the District Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, in the first instance, the petitioner could not successfully file a Writ Petition for a writ of mandamus. In the circumstances, we find no ground to interfere. The W.P.(C) is dismissed. However, the dismissal will not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching the District Collector/ Revenue Divisional Officer by filing proper representation and if any such representation is filed, the Authorities will certainly look into the matter. P.R.RAMAN Acting Chief Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms