IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 22933 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.M.SUHURA BEEVI, NEW BUNGALOW, KARAMOODU, THONNAKKAL PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA), SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.S.JASMINE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.22933 OF 2010(N) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. In this writ petition, what is under challenge is Ext.P6, an order issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner. Petitioner holds Ext.P1 mining lease issued by the first respondent, entitling her to mine china clay from the property mentioned therein. According to the petitioner she is desirous of assigning the said lease in favour of a Private Limited Company. To seek such assignment of lease, she has to submit an application in form `O' and other documents. In order to enable the petitioner to make an application to the first respondent, she has to remit the application fee and for that purpose by Ext.P4 she requested the 2nd respondent to issue a counter singed chalan. This was rejected by Ext.P6 order passed by the second respondent on the ground that the land in question is involved in acquisition proceedings for technocity. It is in these circumstances the writ WPC.No. 22933/2010 :2 : petition is filed. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the reasons stated in Ext.P6 for rejecting Ext.P4 application are absolutely illegal and that the petitioner is entitled to be issued counter signed chalan. 4. However, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent contended that the land in question is under acquisition proceedings and the possession of the land would have been taken over by the first respondent, but for Ext.P2 order passed by this court. 5. As contended by the leaned Government Pleader, it is true that acquisition proceedings have been initiated against the land in question . However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the stay order passed by this court as per Ext.P2, petitioner continues in possession of the land and is also continuing mining activity as well. It is in these circumstances she submitted Ext.P4 application for issuance of a counter signed chalan to assign the lien to a company. WPC.No. 22933/2010 :3 : 6. In my view the rejection of the request made by the petitioner for issuing counter signed chalan cannot be said to be legal. In that view of the matter I set aside Ext.P6 and direct the 2nd respondent to issue counter singed chalan as sought for in Ext.P4. It is made clear that, even in spite of the issuance of counter signed chalan, it will be open to the authorities before whom application for assignment of lease is submitted, to consider the pendency of the land acquisition proceedings also, as and when the application is dealt with. Writ petition is disposed of as above (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/