IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC SATURDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30822 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- CHERIYAKUNHIRAMAN, S/O.MANI, CHOYIMOOLA COLONY, NAYIKATTI P.O., MATHAMANGALAM, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.JOHN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673121. 2. THE GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, MEENANGADI, WAYANAD, PIN-673121. 3. THE ADDL.TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD-673121. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.30822/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER A4-3414/09 DATED 19-2-2009 OF THE TAHSILDAR. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17-2-2009 OF THE ATRICULTURAL OFFICER. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE (NOC) DATED 27-01-2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-1-2010 TO THE TAHSILDAR. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3-12-2010. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.L2-30645/10 DATED 6-12-2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.DOW/M-181/2010 DATED 5-1-2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.L2/30645/10 DATED 28-01-2011. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C4-10593/11 DATED 20-10-2011 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR. EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3-11-2011 IN WPC 29221/2011. EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.L2-30645/10 K.DIS.DATED 3-11-2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 30822 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 19th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner made an application to the District Collector for permission to mine ordinary sand. Reports were obtained and despite the above, application was not considered. Therefore, he approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 29221/11. By Ext.P10 judgment rendered on 3/11/11, the writ petition was disposed of directing that orders be passed on the application expeditiously. On the same day, his application was rejected by Ext.P11. The reason stated in Ext.P11 is that, on the strength of an earlier order, petitioner had unauthorisedly mined ordinary sand and therefore it was decided not to grant him any further permit. It is this order which is under challenge in the writ petition. 2. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while passing Ext.P11 order, the 1st respondent did not advert to Ext.P9, the report made by the Additional Tahsildar on 20/10/11 which says that although it was found that the petitioner had unauthorisedly mined ordinary sand, fine was levied on him and the same was remitted by him. It also says WPC No. 30822/11 :2 : that as the petitioner has remitted fine, his request for further permit can be favourably considered. In other words, if Ext.P11 is an order which is issued ignoring Ext.P9. 3. From the above itself, it is evident that the order has been passed without adverting to relevant consideration and for that reason, I set aside Ext.P11 and direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the petitioner's application mentioned as Ext.P5 in Ext.P10 judgment and orders thereon shall be passed duly adverting to Ext.P9 referred to above. This shall be done with notice to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp