IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 19479 of 2008(R) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. JAYARAJ.P.C., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.CHATHUNNI, KAVIL HOUSE, KAVARATHODE, NANNIYODE P.O., CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. R.VIJAYAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, 'LAKSHMI', MILMA ROAD, KALLEPPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. MANIKANDAN.C., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.LATE CHAMY, RAMALATH VEEDU, PERUMALADY KALAM, EDUPUKULLAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. DAVID.M., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.MICHALE SWAMY, VELLACHI KULAM, PARISAKKAL P.O., CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT. SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2008 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 22288 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.19479/2008 R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY R1. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY R1. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY R1. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY R1. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY R1. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER BY R1. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER BY R1. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BY R1. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BY R1. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BY R1. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BY R1. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BY R1. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER FROM R1. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER FROM R1. Kss ..2/- ....2...... WPC.N.19479/2008 R RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 1 – 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. COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.15/93/PLG. DTD. 18/03/1993. ANNEXURE II – COPY OF THE LIST OF MEMBERS WHO ATTENDED THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. ANNEXURE III- COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.19479 & 22288 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Common issues arise for consideration in these cases. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. I will refer to W.P.(C)No.19479/08 in the first instance. 2. The petitioners obtained licences under the Kerala Miner Mineral Concession Rules {for short 'the Rules'} for removing sand from private lands. Then they moved applications for renewal of the same. By Exts.P8 to P14 orders, the applications for renewal were rejected, essentially on the ground that the resolution, moved before the District Development Authority proposing a ban on removal of sand for a period of six months, was passed unanimously by the District Development Authority. It seems that the District Committee included the Geologist and the licensing authorities as also as an ex-officio member of the Legislative Assembly. The same are challenged in these writ petitions. 3. It is contended that as per Rule 8 of the said rules, a resolution moved by the MLA or passed by the District W.P.(C).NO.19479/08 & con.case :: 2 :: 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 moved by the local authority and adopted by the W.P.(C).NO.19479/08 & con.case :: 3 :: 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. Subject to the above, the writ petitions are disposed of. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//