IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15497 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. P.PUSHPAKUMAR, PUSHPA NIVAS THAZHUTHALA, KOTTIYAM P.O., KOLLAM 2. P.PUSHPARAJ, PUSHPA NIVAS THAZHUTHALA, KOTTIYAM P.O., KOLLAM 3. R.MANMADAN, MANMADA MANDIRAM, THAZHAM CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE GEOLOGIST MINING & GEOLOGY DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLAM 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM BY GP. SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 15497 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are permit holders for mining of ordinary sand under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. They submitted applications for renewal of their permits before the Geologist. The same is not being considered for the reason that the District Collector has issued a direction to the Geologist, not to consider such applications unless NOC is produced from the RDO. Petitioner therefore seeks following reliefs: i) To call for the records leading to Exts.P1 to P3 and to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P1 or similar orders to the extent it puts regulation on the statutory authority of the 1st respondent for considering the application for ordinary sand mining. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus, or oder or direction to the 1st respondent to consider the renewal applications of the petitioners ignoring the stipulations of Ext.P1 under the relevant rules. 2. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the land is one covered by the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and mining of the sand would involve conversion of land. That being so, the permission from the RDO under the Kerala Land W.P.(C).No. 15497 OF 2008 2 Utilisation Order is mandatory and that is why NOC has been insisted upon. 3. It is not disputed that the land is a wet land. If the land is a wet land, naturally, the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order would be applicable to the land. Mining of sand involves conversion of the land. Therefore, it is necessary for the petitioners to obtain NOC from the RDO for removal of sand, which would involve conversion of land. Therefore I do not find anything wrong in insisting on NOC from the RDO for renewal of the permit. In such circumstances I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-