IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4876 of 2011(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.P.VASUDEVAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 40 YEARS, THAZHEPADIKKAL HOUSE, KALARIVATHUKKAL, VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN-670 010. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 670 301. 2. THE GEOLOGIST, MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE, KANNUR. 670 001. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KEEZHUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 670 303. 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 670 313. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No.4876 of 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 28th February , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the interception made by the respondents with regard to the steps taken by him for levelling the land by removing the ordinary earth for which no permission is required (which has already been cleared by the second respondent vide Ext. P2). This being the position, the interference made by the police is liable to be intercepted , which hence is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that there is some apparent conflict between the clauses contained in Ext. P4 Government Circular and Rule 57 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules and as such, clarifications have already been sought from the Government, which is stated as the reason for non- finalisation of the proceedings by the first respondent. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the very purpose of Ext.P4 was to meet the genuine needs of the public including the petitioner, which however has been sought to be watered down without any rhyme or reason. It is also brought to the notice of W.P.(C) No.4876 of 2011 2 this Court that the application preferred by the petitioner was enquired into by respondents 2 and 3, leading to Ext. P2 report sent by the second respondent to the first respondent, clearly observing that necessary permission could be given to the petitioner for removing the ordinary earth as specified therein, despite which, the matter has been simply kept in cold storage by the first respondent. In the above circumstance, the first respondent is directed to consider the matter in the light of Ext. P2, P4 and such other clarifications, if any, to be obtained from the Government and final orders shall be passed in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment . The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk