IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28933 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHERIN V MANI, 30 YEARS, S/O.V.C.MANI, VENGASSERIL HOUSE, PUNNATHURA EAST PO., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DISTRICT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE PO., KOTTAYAM. BY GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).28933/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is regarding the inclusion of clause 18 in Ext.P1 quarrying permit. Petitioner contends that the impact of this provision is that he will not be in a position to use pump or motor for mining and cleaning sand. It is seen that, an issue similar to this was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P3 judgment. In that judgment, this Court has held that, the authorities will have to consider each and every individual case and take a decision as to whether incorporation of a clause similar to clause 18 is necessary or not. In the light of Ext.P3 judgment rendered by this Court and as the facts of this case is similar, I am satisfied that the petitioner is also entitled to a similar order in this case. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of directing that depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case involved in this writ petition and taking into W.P.(C).28933/2008 2 account the environmental impact and public interest, it is for the authorities to consider and decide as to whether a clause similar to clause 18 should be retained in the permit granted to the petitioner. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs