IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 26TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28189 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHIBU P.M., PULICKACHALIL HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 587. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD-682 030. BY ADDL. A.G. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.28189 of 2010 (W) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assignee of the land covered by Ext.P1 patta. In respect of the land, he had also obtained Ext.P2 quarrying permit for the period till 16/08/2010. According to the petitioner, he submitted an application for renewal of Ext.P2 permit. But however the same has not been accepted in view of Ext.P6 order. 2. Ext.P6 is the proceedings of the Geologist dated 26/07/2010, canceling the quarrying permit. This order was issued in pursuance to the directions of this Court in Ext.P7 judgment dated 13/08/2009 in WP(C) No.9605/2008. According to the petitioner, his case is not covered by Ext.P7 judgment, and that therefore, Ext.P6 order cancelling Ext.P2 quarrying permit is also illegal. It is also his case that, at any rate, such an order could not have been issued without putting notice on affected parties including himself. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General, who appeared for WP(C) No.28189/2010 -2- the respondent, pointed out that the period of Ext.P2 permit has already been expired. It is also his case that in the light of Ext.P6 order issued in pursuance to the directions of this Court in Ext.P7 judgment, the petitioner is not entitled to seek renewal of Ext.P2 permit or issuance of a fresh one. 4. Admittedly, what is sought for by the petitioner is grant of a permit. Ext.P6 order contains a virtual prohibition. Therefore, unless the petitioner succeeds in establishing his case against Ext.P6 order, the petitioner cannot seek either renewal of Ext.P2 permit or issue of a fresh one. 5. Admittedly, Ext.P6 order has been issued without putting notice on the petitioner, and in view of the consequences that ensued from Ext.P2 permit, the said order could not have been passed in the manner it is done. Therefore, having regard to the fact that Ext.P6 order has been passed without complying with the principles of natural justice, I am inclined to think that the same shall be treated as a notice enabling the petitioner to file his objections against the same, and that the respondent should hear the petitioner and pass fresh orders duly adverting to the WP(C) No.28189/2010 -3- contentions that he may urge. 6. In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition directing that Ext.P6 will be treated as a notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why prohibition as contemplated therein shall not be endorsed. It will be open to the petitioner to file his objections to Ext.P6 within three weeks from today, in which event, the respondent will hear the petitioner within two weeks thereafter and pass fresh orders in the matter. It is made clear that in the meanwhile, on the strength of this judgment, the petitioner shall not carry on any activity, which is prohibited by Ext.P6. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the respondent for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg