IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37725 of 2010(M) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- JOY.T.U., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. P.C.ULAHANNAN, THAIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, VENGOOR.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KOTTAPPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAPPADY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 695. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOTTAPPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTTAPPADY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 695. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.37725/2010 M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR OBTAINING THE PANCHAYATH LICENSE FOR RUNNING HIS QUARRY DTD. 16/08/2010. P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 16/08/2010. P3: COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT DTD. 19/05/2010 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE LE-3 LICENSE DTD. 03/08/2010 ISSUEDBY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE TO THE PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 10/11/2010 VALID UPTO 31/12/2012. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.37725 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition has been filed to alleviate the grievance relating non-consideration of Ext.P1 application for licence to run a quarry. Ext.P1 is dated 16.8.2010. The contention of the petitioner is that he has submitted the said application for conducting the quarry and its operation in private land. Be that as it may, it is a fact that the petitioner has already submitted Ext.P1 application for the requisite licence. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the authority of the respondents to consider the said application for grant of licence for quarrying. In the said circumstances, the second respondent is bound to consider Ext.P1 application. Therefore, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised in this Writ Petition, it is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO. 2 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO. 3