IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2571 of 2009(F) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- VINOD.K.THOMAS,S/O.THOMAS, AGED 41, MAROTTIKKAL(H),KOYANDU KARA, MARADI VILLAGE, OORAMANA.P.O,MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MARADI VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. DEPT.OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DISTRICT OFFICE,KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-20. 6. THE MARADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,MARADI, MUVATTUPUZHA. 7. THE DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 8. P.V.SOMAM. S/O.VARKEY, AGED ABOUT 42, PONNAL (H),OORAMAQNA.PO,MARADI VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW FOR R8 SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS FOR R5 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 2571 OF 2009 (F) ==================== Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and also the counsel appearing for the 8th respondent. 2. The complaint of the petitioner is mainly regarding the alleged non implementation of Ext.P3, a prohibitory order issued by the 3rd respondent prohibiting sand mining from the property having an extent of 1 acre 47.333 cents in Sy.No.1124/1 and 1124/10B. 3. The case was adjourned with a direction to the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions in the matter. 4. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submit that as the 8th respondent does not have mining permit from the Geologist, Ext.P3 has been issued and since the issuance of Ext.P3, there is no mining. 5. Counsel appearing for the 8th respondent submits that he has licences concerning the properties other than the property mentioned in Ext.P3 and that on the strength of Ext.P3, his activities in the licenced areas is also interfered with. 6. As already noticed, the grievance of the petitioner is regarding the non implementation of Ext.P3. Ext.P3 concerns 1.47.333 acres of land WPC 2571/09 :2 : in Sy.No.1124/1 and 1124/10B of Maradi Village. So long as Ext.P3 is in force, the 8th respondent cannot resort to sand mining in the property mentioned therein. In case if there is any violation, it will be open to the petitioner to approach respondents 2, 3 or 7, in which case, appropriate action will be taken for prohibiting the same. 7. It is clarified that the impact of Ext.P3 order will be confined to the property mentioned therein and that if the 8th respondent has licences in respect of any other property, Ext.P3 will not be used to prohibit his activities in the licenced areas. It is also made clear that in case the 8th respondent makes any application for licence in respect of the property mentioned in Ext.P3, that will also be considered untramelled by Ext.P3 order. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp