IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33083 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.DINESHAN, KANNANKANDIYIL HOUSE, THOONERI DESOM, VADAKARA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.IV/112, MEKKATTUPURAYIDOM EDAVATTOM P.O., THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM 686605. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE GEOLOGIST, MINING & GEOLOGY DISTRICT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 3. SREELATHA.K.S., W/O.K.MOHANDAS, KADAMBALAMITTOM HOUSE, EDAVATTOM P.O., THALAYOLAPARAMBU, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.33083 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner held a permit to mine 1250 metric tones of ordinary sand from his 5 cents of property, as per Exhibit P1 permit dated 12.8.2008. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent was obstructing the mining activities of the petitioner. Though there are certain allegations made against the 3rd respondent in the context of a consent stated to have been given by the 3rd respondent's husband for mining sand from a different land. I do no find any reason to refer to any of those aspects. By Exhibit P5 notice, the Geologist cancelled the quarrying permits granted to various persons in the Vaikom Taluk on a temporary basis. By Exhibit P6, the petitioner was intimated that the order of cancellation issued on a general basis as per Exhibit P5 would be applicable to the case of the petitioner also. By Exhibit P7, the petitioner has approached the District Geologist W.P ( C) No.33083 of 2008 2 seeking a review of Exhibit P6 invoking the power under Rule 51 of the Kerala Miner Mineral Concession Rules. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the Geologist to consider Exhibit P6. It is necessary to take note of the fact that the 3rd respondent has raised a general complaint against illegal quarrying being carried on in the said property. It is appropriate that the 3rd respondent also be heard before orders are passed on Exhibit P7. It seems that 3rd respondent has filed a report before the Geologist resisting the motion made by the petitioner in this regard. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Exhibit P7 and pass an order thereon, after hearing the petitioner as also the 3rd respondent. This shall be done within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.33083 of 2008 3 W.P ( C) No.33083 of 2008 4