IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 33597 of 2007(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- K.P. GOPINATHAN, S/O. K.K. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT SREEKRISHNA SADANAM, KANDAKKADI P.O., MAYYIL (VIA), KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUDHEESH THAROL SRI.P.BABU RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR. 4. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. THE SECREARY, MAYYIL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MAYYIL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.K.THULASY BHAI,SC, POLLUTION C.BOA SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.P. SREEKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC. 33597/2007. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : THE PHOTO COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 3.10.2007. EXT. P2 : THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ILLEGAL SAND MINING AT PERUMBARKADAVU IN MAYYIL PANCHAYATH. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 33597 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this court feeling aggrieved by the illegal sand mining at the Perumbarakadavu, Mayyil Panchayath. He seeks a direction to the fifth respondent not to issue permit for sand mining in the Chooliyad Kadavu without conducting a detail study by a competent authority. The further prayer is for a direction to respondents 2 and 5 to take immediate steps to preserve the kadavu and protect the same from further sand mining. 2. Counter affidavit is filed by the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent purported to dispute the allegations in the writ petition. The stand of the Panchayath inter alia is that there is no kadavu as referred to in the writ petition. 3. I feel that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P1 while leaving open the contentions of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P1 in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt WPC. 33597/2007. 2 of a copy of this judgment. I leave open all the contentions of the petitioner. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb