IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25371 of 2008(U) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.KRISHNADAS, KULAMBI (H), MANNANUR P.O., PALAKKAD DIST, PIN 679 523. BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN SMT.K.PUSHPAVATHI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 2. GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT, MINING AND GEOLOGY,PALAKKAD. 3. DISTRICT PLANNING OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 4. M/S U.V. SAN, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER D. RAJKUMAR, KOCHUVELYIL, THEVALLY, KOLLAM WEST P.O., KOLLAM 691 009. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R.SREELATHA FOR R1 TO R3 ADV. SRI.M.RAJEEV FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.25371/2008 U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DTD. 03/06/2008 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF BASIC TAX BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROPERTY TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER SHORNUR FOR THE REMAINING PERIOD OF THE YEAR 2008-09. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT DTD. 26/05/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR QUARRYING 2000 METRIC TON OF ORDINARY SAND FROM 1 ACRE 2 CENTS IN THE PROPERTY REFERRED TO IN EXHIBIT P1 FOR A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/06/2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 09/06/2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT AVERTING TO THE SUGGESTIONS SURFACED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 31/05/2008 OF THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND THE APPROVAL MADE BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE WRITTEN CONSENT DTD. 27/06/2008 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PASS DTD. 06/10/2008 ISSUED JOINTLY BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, ADDITIONAL THAHAZILDAR OTTAPPALAM AND SECRETARY OF VANIAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE SRI.GOVIND. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(A): COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDERS: 1. COPY OF G.O.(MS) 1/67/PLG. DTD. 17/01/1967. 2. COPY OF G.O.(P) 22/03/PLG DTD.4/11/1993. 3. COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.TL/17324/56/PL&D DTD. 22/06/1957. 4. G.O.(P) NO.15/93/PLG.DTD. 18/03/1993. EXT.R2(B): COPY OF THE LIST OF MEMBERS WHO ATTENDED THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25371 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT Pursuant to the consent allegedly given by the 4th respondent - the owner of two properties, having an extent of 55 cents and another item having an extent of 1 acre 35 cents, the petitioner applied for a quarrying permit for quarrying ordinary sand. Ext.P2 permit was issued in this regard on 26.5.2008 and a time limit was also fixed. In the meanwhile, taking note of the scarcity of water and on the recommendation made by the Palakkad District Collector prohibiting sand mining for six months in Palakkad District, Ext.P3 order was issued by the 2nd respondent requiring the petitioner to stop the sand mining. This is on the basis of the acceptance of the suggestion of the Palakkad District Development Committee as evidenced by Ext.P4. Exts.P3 and P4 are challenged in this writ petition. 2. Learned Government Pleader submits that the issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the judgment of this court in W.P.(C)No.22288/08. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the judgment read as follows: W.P.(C).NO.25371/08 :: 2 :: “3. It is contended that as per Rule 8 of the said rules, a resolution moved by the MLA or passed by the District Development Authority is not a relevant factor. That is an extraneous factor insofar as the exercise of power by the licensing authority is concerned. The contention is that the view taken on technical grounds is baseless. The Geologist has to take a decision independently. It is nobody's case that under the Miner Mineral Concession Rules, sand mining from private land is prohibited. The impact on the environment, which if carried on for a prolonged period, would bring about shortage of water, are matters, which are not only irrelevant insofar as the Licensing Authority is concerned, but a decision in that regard should be taken by the Geologist independently and not on the compulsion of any other person. 4. It cannot be said that the possible environmental degradation brought about by the indiscriminate removal of sand from an area and the shortage of ground water brought about by the said activity carried on indiscriminately and irrationally cannot be taken noted by the Licensing Authority. The question is whether the decision taken is sustainable or not. By no stretch of imagination, can it be said that the resolution W.P.(C).NO.25371/08 :: 3 :: moved by the local authority and adopted by the District Development Authority is an irrelevant or irrational factor. I cannot, therefore, find fault with the decision even going by Exts.P8 to P14. The moratorium declared on the removal of sand from private property, is only for a period of six months. This makes it clear that it could be varied if there are change of circumstances. The Licensing Authority may reconsider the application, if a motion is made in that behalf 5. In the result, if the petitioners file applications for renewal of permit beyond the period of six months mentioned in Exts.P8 to P14, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law by the Licensing Authority.” 3. In my view, the issued raised by the petitioner is directly covered by the directions issued in the aforesaid judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as a matter of fact, the moratorium in relation to the properties involved in W.P.(C)No.22288/08 will not apply to the petitioner as such. Even if that be so, what is germane in this case, is the fact that the petitioners in the aforementioned case have been W.P.(C).NO.25371/08 :: 4 :: permitted to make applications for fresh consent after the expiry of six months' moratorium imposed as per Ext.P4. The same direction would enure in favour of the petitioner herein also. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of holding that if the petitioner applies for a fresh permit, after the expiry of six months' period mentioned in Ext.P4, such application shall be considered in accordance with law and a decision will be taken within one month from the date on which the application is filed, by the licensing authority. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent, for compliance. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//