IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19625 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THANKAMMA MATHEW KALAPPURAKKUNNEL HOUSE, VEROOR MURI CHETHIPPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOTTAYAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,KOTTAYAM. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, CHETHIPPUZHA, CHANGANACHERRY. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 19625 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010 O R D E R The petitioner applied before the 2nd respondent for permit to remove earth from her property. Permit was initially granted. But the local people objected to the removal of earth and caused obstructions to the petitioner removing earth. The petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition, viz. W.P.(C).No.6528/2010, seeking police protection. While that writ petition was pending, the period of the permit expired. The petitioner filed an I.A. in that writ petition seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to renew the permit. The Division Bench of this Court, who considered that I.A., dismissed the I.A. leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the competent court. It is pursuant to the same, this writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ of mandamus are (sic) any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 representation within a time limit.” 2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that originally a permit was granted to the petitioner for removal of 1000 loads of earth. But after removing 100 loads, the local people obstructed and, therefore, the petitioner could not remove earth further. The learned Government Pleader submits that it is under the w.p.c.19625/10 2 above circumstances, the petitioner's request for renewal of the permit was not considered. He further submits that if the Court so directs, the 2nd respondent would consider and pass orders on the same in accordance with law. 3. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the request of the petitioner for renewal of the permit by considering Ext.P2 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as others who may be affected by removal of earth. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge