IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30236 of 2008(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ T.N.BABU, THEKKUMKATTIL, MEVELOOR, VELLOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF, SMT.MOLLY JACOB, SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K, SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI, SMT.T.V.SREEJA, SMT.M.KABANI DINESH. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. R.D.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. GEOLOGIST, MINING & GEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. 4. NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.R.NARAYANAN NAIR, PERUMPILLI VEEDU, KALAMPOOR, PIRAVOM. 5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKLAM. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI FOR R1 TO R3 & R5. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30236 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT The facts stated in the writ petition reveals a long pending dispute, as regards the operation of a quarry for ordinary sand under the Miner Mineral Concession Rules, sought to be done by the petitioner on the strength of the permission granted by the competent authority. 2. Pursuant to an earlier direction issued by this court requiring the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider whether, the objections raised by the contesting respondents herein against the operation of the quarry, are sustainable or not and whether the order of stay passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer requires to be vacated, the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 1st respondent has passed Ext.P12 order apparently affirming his earlier stand. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr.T.K.Mohammed Youseff submits that the order, Ext.P12 is vitiated on several grounds. But, I find that the petitioner has moved Ext.P13 representation before the District Collector, challenging the correctness of Ext.P12. In the W.P.(C).NO.30236/08 :: 2 :: fitness of things, I think, it is only appropriate that the District Collector looks into Ext.P13 and takes a decision. I make it clear that the District Collector will be entitled to treat Ext.P13 as an appeal against Ext.P12. 4. I heard learned counsel for the 4th respondent Sri.Peeyus A.Kottam also. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 5th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P13, after hearing the petitioner as also the 4th respondent in the writ petition, who is the objector. Orders shall be passed by the District Collector within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge