IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22490 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.S. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, SECRETARY, CHAKKAMALA AYIRAVALLI PARA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI ACTION COUNCIL, RESIDING AT RAM CHAND, MADATHARA, MADATHARA.P.O, VIA KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, CHITHARA, KOLLAM. 6. CHITHARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHITHARA.P.O, KOLLAM - 691 559. 7. POABS ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JOSEPH JACOB, PANCHAYIL HOUSE, OTHARA, KUTTOOR MURI, KUTTOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. SR GP SMT.M.J.RAJSSHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22490 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.3.11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.358 OF 2010 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES, CONTAINING DECISION NO.72 OF THE CHITHARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 27.12.10 (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).22490/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The grievance raised in the writ petition is that respondents 1 to 5 are taking steps to grant quarrying lease to the seventh respondent for quarrying operations in the Government land. As at present, even according to the petitioner, no licence has been granted and therefore, the writ petition at this stage is premature. Without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner and remedies that are available to him, the writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs