IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13814 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SATHEESH.N.K,S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 39 YEARS,NIRAVATH HOUSE, KARATTUPALLIKKARA, PERUMBAVOOR PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE GEOLOGIST,DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY,CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI30 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTORT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-30. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 13814 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 25th May , 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers : i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Ext. P3 report and Ext. P4 (a) remarks of the 1st respondent. ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext. P5 representation forthwith. iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 1st respondent to issue quarrying permit to the petitioner for extracting granite pieces from the property comprised in Ext. P1 and in document No. 670/2006 dated 04.03.2006 of the Sub Registry, Kuruppampady, forthwith; and iv. issue such other writ, order or direction, as this Honourable Court may deem fit, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance is more with regard to the callous inaction on the part of the concerned respondent in considering and passing appropriate orders on Ext. P5 request for granting quarrying permit. W.P. (C) No. 13814 of 2011 : 2 : 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents as well; who submits that, Ext. P5 request for quarrying permit preferred by the petitioner is not in the prescribed manner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the contents of Ext. P4, submits that, Ext. P4 pertains to the details of the quarrying applications received by the first respondent, wherein the name of the petitioner has been given at serial 'No. 3' and it was pursuant to this, that the petitioner chose to prefer Ext. P5 on 10.12.2009, despite which, the matter is being kept in the cold storage. 5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the first respondent to consider the application preferred by the petitioner for quarrying permit, forming subject matter of the present case and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd