IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 6001 of 2009(U) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O. GANGADHARAN, AGED 37 YEARS, PALLIYIL HOUSE, KULAKKADA EAST, P.O. KULAKKADA, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KOLLAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KULAKKADA. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 6014 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 6001/2009-U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD UNDER TH AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT 1981 AND THE ENVIORNMENT (PROTECTION) ACT 1986. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 29/11/2008 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KULAKKADA. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER GRANTING NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE MINING PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 09/02/2009 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14/02/2009 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/02/2009 WRITTEN BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE KULAKKADA GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE REVENUE MINISTER OF KERALA. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.32010/L2/93/ID DATED 22/06/1995. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ V.GIRI, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6001 & 6014 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT Common contentions are raised in these writ petitions and therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. I will refer to W.P.(C) No.6014/06 in the first instance. 2. The petitioner was granted permission to mine mud from the land comprised in Survey No.23/3-2 of Kulakkada Village. The property belongs to another person. Ext.P1 certificate of consent was issued by the Pollution Control Board and Ext.P6 No Objection Certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. According to the petitioner the District Collector approved the same and thereafter the 2nd respondent Geologist passed Ext.P3 order permitting removal of 2000 MT of mud from the property, which is mentioned therein. The petitioner proceeded to mine the same, but was met with Ext.P4 dated 14.2.2009, issued by the Additional Tahsildar requiring him to stop further mining in the said property. Ext.P4 has been challenged by the petitioner. W.P.(C).No.6001 & 6014 of 2009 :: 2 :: 3. Similar is the challenge mounted in the other writ petition. 4. The petitioner has taken up several contentions; one of them being that the Additional Tahsildar is incompetent to issue a stop memo under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 {for short 'the Rules'}. It is further contended that the stop memo is issued without notice to the petitioner. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Additional Tahsildar, inter alia, contending that the Additional Tahsildar is also competent to exercise authority under the Rules in terms of notification S.R.O.No.860/95 dated 22.6.1995. It is further contended that the petitioner has removed more clay than what was permitted. So, he cannot have any grievance. 6. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit repudiating the stand taken in the counter affidavit. I do not think it necessary to finally pronounce on the competence of the Additional Tahsildar to exercise powers under the Rules. According to me, in circumstances where the permit has been issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer and a permission has been granted by the Geologist, the contention that there is W.P.(C).No.6001 & 6014 of 2009 :: 3 :: infraction of the permit conditions shall be appropriately looked into by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Further, the permit in question is having a limited period of validity. It may be open to the petitioner to seek a renewal of the same. But, in circumstance where there is an allegation of excessive removal of clay by the petitioner in contravention of the conditions of the permit, the Revenue Divisional Officer may first look into the said allegation and then forward a report to the Geologist. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to treat Ext.P4 as a show cause notice issued by him and then proceed to consider the objections, which the petitioner may raise against Ext.P4. The Revenue Divisional Officer should conduct an enquiry and then pass final orders either deciding to confirm the proposal for stopping further mining on the basis of the existing permit or to revoke the stop memo. In the event of the objections raised by the petitioner being accepted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, final orders in this regard shall be passed within one month from the date when the petitioner files his objections to Ext.P4. W.P.(C).No.6001 & 6014 of 2009 :: 4 :: 8. The Revenue Divisional Officer shall also sent an intimation to the Geologist for the purpose of enquiry to be conducted into the objections which the petitioner may prefer against Ext.P4 and if an application for renewal of the permit is pending before the Geologist, he shall take a decision thereon, after orders are passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, in the manner aforementioned, taking into account the said decision taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer. W.P.(C)No.6001/09. 9. The directions issued in W.P.(C)No.6014/09 will be applicable to this writ petition also. Accordingly, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass orders on the objections to be filed by the petitioner in this writ petition, within the time mentioned above. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//