IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25231 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.G.SUDHEER, AGED 41, S/O. M.R.GOPI, MULLAKKERI THARA, VADAKKEMURI, UDAYANAPURAM P.O., VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.MOHAMMED YOUSUFF, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SMT.MOLLY JACOB SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K. SRI.P.K.SALEEM SMT.T.V.HEMALATHA SMT.NAZMIN ABDUL LATHEEF SMT.ARATHI KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 141. 2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. - 686001 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. -695001 4. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, MINING & GEOLOGY, KOTTAYAM. -686001 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25231 of 2011(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : PHOTO COPY OF THE OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DTD.4.2.2010. EXT.P2 : PHOTO COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST DTD.10.8.2010. EXT.P3 : PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.26881/2010 DTD.30.8.2010. EXT.P4 : PHOTO COPY OF THE RENEWAL PERMIT ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST DTD.23.8.2011. EXT.P5 : PHOTO COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :NIL //True copy// PA to Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 25231 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September , 2011. JUDGMENT According to the petitioner as part of his business activities he is mining and transporting ordinary sand from his property. 2. Initially he was doing such activity on the basis of Exhibit P2 permission. At that stage complaining of the interference by the Sub Inspector of Police, Muhamma he had filed a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha and approached this Court by filing writ petition No.26881/2010. It is stated that pursuant to the directions contained in Exhibit P3 judgment of this Court, the matter was considered and due to the interference of the Superintendent of Police, he was able to continue his business. 3. Now the petitioner has obtained a new permit, copy of which is Exhibit P4. In this writ petition the petitioner's complaint is that the first respondent is interfering with his business activities. It is stated that complaining of the above he has filed Exhibit P5 representation before the 2nd respondent herein. Allegation in the writ petition is that the representation W.P(C) No. 25231 of 2011 2 is not attended to and that therefore, he is not in a position to carry on bis business. Taking note of the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, I direct that if Exhibit P5 representation has been received and pending the 2nd respondent will duly consider the same and pass orders thereon. This the 2nd respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE rkc //True copy// PA to Judge