IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1522 of 2011(M) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SHIBU P.M., PULICKACHALIL HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 587. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW, SRI.B.PREMNATH. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD-682 030 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 587. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.MR.M.H. HANILKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.1522 OF 2011(M) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Prayer sought in this writ petition is a direction for consideration of Ext.P15 representation made by the petitioner for renewing the permission for continuing quarrying operation. However, it is seen that initially by Ext.P6 the first respondent prohibited quarrying by the petitioner. That order was challenged before this court in WP(c).No.28189/2010. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment directing that Ext.P6 be treated as a notice and the petitioner be heard and fresh orders be passed. Accordingly petitioner filed Exts.P8 and P9 objections. He was heard by the Geologist and the Geologist passed Ext.P10 order dated 22.11.2010, upholding the prohibition imposed by Ext.P6. Ext.P10 order was not challenged by the petitioner. Subsequently, relying on Exts.P11 to P14, he has now filed Ext.P15 and in this writ petition he seeks a direction for consideration of Ext.P15 in the light of Exts.P11 to P14 ignoring Ext.P10. In this writ petition petitioner also raised an alternate plea of challenging Ext.P10. WPC.No. 1522/2011 :2 : 2. In my view, primarily what the petitioner should do or should have done was to pursue the appellate remedies available against Ext.P10. The fact that certain orders are issued which are beneficial to the petitioner are also to be taken advantage of in the appeal to be filed. Therefore, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition or direct consideration of Ext.P15. In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue appellate remedies against Ext.P10 taking advantage of Exts.P11 to P14. It is directed that if the petitioner filed an appeal within 2 weeks from today, the same shall be considered with notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/