IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 33946 of 2007(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ECO FRIENDS, PALAKUNNU, P.O.BEKAL-671 371, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, RAVEENDRAN KOKAL. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KASARAGOD. 2. THE PORT OFFICER, KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE PORT OFFICER, BEPUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. THE PORT CONSERVATOR, PORT & SHIPPING OFFICE, KASARAGOD. 4. GEOLOGIST, MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE, KASARAGOD. 5. UDMA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V.MANOJKUMAR ADV. SRI.T.MADHU - R5 ADV. SRI.K.RAJEEVAN - R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).33946/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1:-COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA BEARING NO.778/2006. EXT.P2:-COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/05/2005 OF PETITIONER. EXT.P3:-COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/06/2007 ISSUED 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4:-COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5:-COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED OCTOBER, 2007. EXT.P6:-COPY OF LETTER ISSUED 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 10/10/2007. EXT.P7:-COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.33946/2007 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P7. 2. Ext.P7 is an order issued by the 4th respondent cancelling Exts.P5 and P6. The facts of the case are that, Ext.P5 is the proceedings of the 3rd respondent permitting the petitioner to undertake manual dredging of sand from the Navigational channels to Kappil estuary. In terms of Ext.P5, petitioner was permitted to mine 100 tons of sand during the period from 10.10.2007 to 19.10.2007. Ext.P5 inter-alia provides for payment of costs of the sand and also royalty to the Geology Department for obtaining P forms. In pursuance to Ext.P5, the Geologist issued Ext.P6, specifying the permit period and the quantity to be mined by the petitioner. 2 3. Petitioner submits that, though Ext.P6 was issued on 10.10.2007, without any notice or other proceedings, Ext.P7 was issued by the 4th respondent cancelling the permit with effect from 16.10.2007. It is challenging Ext.P7 that this writ petition has been filed. 4. A reading of Ext.P7 shows that, reference is seen made to a complaint received from the 5th respondent Panchayat, which was made to the District Collector. From the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat, it would appear that the Panchayat alleged indiscriminatory mining and that the mining undertaken by the petitioner was from an area outside the estuary of the river. 5. Learned Government Pleader on instruction also submits that, a complaint was received to the effect that the petitioner was conducting manual mining operation from the outside permitted area and that investigation was conducted by the 4th respondent, when the correctness of this allegation was also confirmed. 3 6. It may be true that there were such complaints, but the fact remains that, by Ext.P7, the permit, that was issued to the petitioner was cancelled without issuing notice to the petitioner and therefore the proceedings culminating to Ext.P7 are to be held as violative of the principles of natural justice. In the aforesaid circumstances, I feel that the matter needs to be reconsidered. 7. In the circumstances, I direct the 4th respondent to issue notice to the petitioner, hear him and then pass orders in the matter. Before orders are passed as above, the 4th respondent should also put the 5th respondent Panchayat also on notice. 8. The period of Ext.P5 permit expired as early as on 19.10.2007. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if he succeeds in satisfying the 4th respondent that there was no justification for cancellation of Ext.P7 he can seek extension of the period of Ext.P5. Now that the period of Ext.P5 has expired, in any case I direct that the consideration of the request of the petitioner arises only 4 after the order to be passed, after notice and hearing the petitioner. It is clarified that continuance of mining if any will be dependent upon the orders to be passed, as stated above, on the request to be made by the petitioner. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 5