IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 22296 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.G.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.GOPALAN KARUKELIL, PADINJAREKKARA PO., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, BAKER JN., KOTTAYAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO), PALA, KOTTAYAM. 3. TAHASILDAR, VAIKOM TALUK, VAIKOM , KOTTAYAM. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, NADUVILE VILLAGE VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.22296 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner owns certain properties, which is evidenced by Exts.P1 to P3. According to the petitioner, the same is a coconut plantation. The petitioner wanted to secure a permit to mine sand from the property in question, for which he has to submit a location plan along with the application for permit. The petitioner applied for a location plan before the 3rd respondent. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the same is not being issued on the ground that as per the Revenue records the property in question is a wet land and mining permit cannot be issued in respect of wet lands. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. The learned Government Pleader would submit that since the purpose for which the location plan is sought is an illegal purpose, location plan cannot be issued to the petitioner. I am not satisfied that the respondents can take such a stand. Any citizen has a right to file an application under the relevant provision of law. Whether it can be granted or not is a different w.p.c.22296/08 2 question. If under law, the application cannot be allowed for proper reasons, the appropriate authority can refuse to grant permission. But they cannot prevent the petitioner from filing an application. So also when an application is submitted for a location sketch, the 3rd respondent cannot deny the same on the ground that the petitioner's intention in obtaining such a location sketch is to apply for a permit to mine sand, which cannot be done in the property. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent to issue to the petitioner a location plan within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. However, I make it clear that I have not considered the eligibility of the petitioner for a sand permit, if applied for, on the basis of the location plan, which is for the appropriate authority to consider in accordance with law. I also make it clear that if the petitioner has violated any provisions of law, like Kerala Land Utilization Order, this judgment will not stand in the way of the respondents in taking appropriate action. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.22296/08 3