IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 17419 of 2011(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- P. UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.PACHUPILLAI, UNNIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, VENGARA, THODIYOOR NORTH P.O., KRUNAGAPPILLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-690 001. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 001. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE, SOORANADU NORTH P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 561 4. THE GEOLOGIST, MINING & GEOLOGY DISTRICT OFFICE, ASRAMAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 001. 5. THE SOORANADU NORTH GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 561. 6. THE SECRETARY, SOORANADU NORTH GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SOORANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690 561. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH. R5 & R6 BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 17419 of 2011(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 20/06/2011 VALID UPTO 19/07/2011. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT SEEKING FOR NOC FOR MINING BRICK CLAY FROM HIS PROPERTY DATED 04/02/2010. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 09/02/2011 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 28/02/2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE SKETCH AND PLAN AND THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 21/01/2011 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT DATED 07/04/2011 VALID UPTO 21/04/2011. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/04/2011 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 06/05/2011 FOR VACATING EXHIBIT P7. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/05/2011 ISSUED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE BANK GUARANTEE DATED 26/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE BANK OF BARODA, KARUNAGAPPILLY BRANCH TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 25/03/2011 SWORN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT WHILE OBTAINING EXHIBIT P6. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).17419/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P7 and P9, prohibitory orders issued by the Village Officer and the Panchayat prohibiting the petitioner from carrying on mining activities based on Ext.P6, which was subsequently extended by Ext.P1. The contention raised by the petitioner is that before Ext.P6 was issued, the District Collector had already issued NOC by Ext.P4 and therefore, the allegation, on the basis of which Exts.P7 and P9 are issued, is factually and legally incorrect. 2. However, the learned Government Pleader points out that the prohibitory orders were issued in view of the objections raised by the neighbouring land owners whose consent was not obtained before issuing Ext.P6. 3. Although it is the case of the petitioner that once the conditions in Ext.P4 NOC are satisfied, he is entitled to be issued Ext.P6 permit and that such a permit holder is entitled to carry on mining activities. Still, fact remains that NOC itself is a conditional W.P.(C).17419/11 2 one, in as much as before anything further is done, consent from the neighbouring property owners should have been obtained. 4. From the counter affidavit it is obvious that the permit was issued without obtaining such consent. Therefore, the permit was issued without complying with the conditions of the NOC. That apart, even in this writ petition, the condition imposed by the District Collector that consent from the neighbouring property owners should be obtained before issuing permit, is not under challenge. In such circumstances, I cannot find anything objectionable in Ext.P7 or P9. 5. Be that as it may, if consent is obtained by the petitioner in compliance with the conditions imposed in Ext.P4, subject to the satisfaction of the other conditions, it will be open to the authorities concerned to reconsider the matter. Writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs