IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4278 of 2011(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.MATHEW ABRAHAM, PROPRIETOR, M/S.SOUTHERN ROCK AND AGGREGATE MINING CO. JANDAIK, CHERUKULANGI, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689673. BY ADV. MR. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS MS. NISHA JOHN MR. ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2. GEOLOGIST, DEAPRTMENT OF MINIGN AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA - 691523. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 4278 OF 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 10th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate directions to be given to the first respondent to issue fresh lease to the petitioner as applied for in Ext. P1 and as recommended by the second respondent vide Ext. P2. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was conducting the quarrying operations by virtue of the lease right from 1998 and that he has applied for renewal two months prior to the expiry, with all the requisite documents. It was after considering the credentials of the petitioner, that necessary recommendation was made by the second respondent. But, the matter is still to be considered by the first respondent, which made the petitioner to approach this Court. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits on the basis of materials on record, that the delay is not due to the fault on the part of the first respondent but because of non-production of the requisite documents as covered by Ext. P3, which accordingly have been sought to be produced through the second respondent. The said W.P. (C) No. 4300 of 2011 : 2 : submission is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that Ext. P3 has been issued without proper application of mind and all the requisite documents have already been produced by petitioner, on basis of which alone, has the second respondent recommended the application for renewal. 4. In any view of the matter, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of the case, for the time being. The writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider Ext. P1 application in the light of Ext. P2 recommendation and also on the basis of all the relevant records necessary for the propose of renewal. Appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd