IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 4278 of 2009(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- T.G.PARATHEEP, AGED 34 YEARS S/O. GOPALA PANICKER, PARATHEEP NIVAS KURICHI PO, CHANGANASSERY,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.S.RAJ MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALA, KOTTAYAM. 3. GEOLOGIST DISTRICT MINING AND GEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT KOTTAYAM. 4. LT. COL. DR.B. VENUGOPAL (RTD) KOTTURUTHIYIL, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD FOR R4 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 4278 OF 2009 (H) ==================== Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is basically aggrieved by Ext.P2, a stop memo issued by the 3rd respondent preventing the petitioner from carrying on the mining in pursuance to Ext.P1 permit. Admittedly, Ext.P2 stop memo was issued based on Ext.P3 complaint made by the 4th respondent. 2. Today, counsel for the petitioner points out that in view of the fact that the period of Ext.P1 permit has expired on 19/2/2009, he intends to make an application for its renewal to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent may be directed to consider the same. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 4. As is seen from Ext.P1 itself, the period of the permit was upto 19/2/2009. It was while so that the stop memo was issued. Now that the period of the permit has expired, it is only appropriate that if the petitioner seeks its renewal or a fresh permit is sought for, orders shall be passed only with notice to the 4th respondent, at whose instance Ext.P2 stop memo was issued. WPC 4278/09 :2 : Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent that any order permitting further mining in the area covered by Ext.P1 shall be issued only after passing orders with notice to the 4th respondent. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp