IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13963 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 50, PUTHENTHARAYIL HOUSE, EDAVATTOM, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ SRI.P.PRIJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM. 3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. SR GP SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).13963/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner (along with three other co-owners of the concerned property) was granted Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate for pursuing quarrying activities in the property. Necessary consent from the neighbours was also obtained and produced by the petitioner. 2. Based on the relevant documents, the third respondent issued Ext.P7 quarrying permit on 26.11.2010 and the petitioner has been undertaking the quarrying operations accordingly. It was in the meanwhile that, the second respondent issued Ext.P8 on 8.12.2010 diverting to stop all further activities forthwith. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P8 on several grounds; more so, when the same has been issued without hearing. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that Ext.P8 could be treated as a notice and the matter could be directed to be disposed of by the second W.P.(C).13963/11 2 respondent afresh with liberty to the petitioner to file statement of objections in response to Ext.P8. 4. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is directed to file statement of objections if any, with regard to his claims as put forth in the writ petition, treating Ext.P8 as a notice, within two weeks, on which event, same shall be considered and finalised by the second respondent, passing appropriate orders in accordance with law, giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within one month thereafter. 'Status quo' will continue till such time. 5. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for taking further steps. Writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs