IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 1068 of 2010(G) ---------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.278/2008 Dated 30/01/2010) .................... PETITIONER//9TH RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- P.R.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, G.K.METAL AND CRUSHER, KATTUPURAM, VILAVOOR P.O., KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691578. BY ADVS. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR SMT.HENA BAHULEYAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PRAKASH, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 42 YEARS, JYOTHI BHAVAN, VILAVOORKONAM P.O., KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN: 691 578. 2. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O.DAMODARAN PILLAI, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT RADHAKRISHNA MANDIRAM, VILAVOORKONAM P.O., KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN: 691 578. 3. THE GEOLOGIST, OFFICE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KOLLAM- 691 002. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM - 691013. 5. KALLUVATHUKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691578. 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 691578. RP.No. 1068 of 2010(G) --------------------------------- 7. AJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, KATTUPURAM, VILAVOORKONAM P.O. KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691578. 8. RAJENDRAN PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RAJENDRA VILASAM, KATTUPURAM, VILAVOOR P.O., KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691578. 9. SUJIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, SUJIVILASOM, KATTUPURAM, VILAVOOR P.O., KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691578. 10. V.PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, GOPIKA, KATTUPURAM, VILAVOOR P.O., KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691578. R1 BY GEORGE SEBASTIAN R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.K.B.RAMANAND R5 BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER R7 TO R10 BY ADV. SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,J. ------------------------------ R.P.No.1068 OF 2010 IN W.P(C).No.278 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010 O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the 5th respondent as also learned Government Pleader. Notice to other respondents dispensed with preserving their right to rehearing of the matter, if aggrieved by the order being passed hereunder. This review petition is necessitated, in the view of the review petitioner, because of an attempt to abuse a statement in the judgment. He was the 9th respondent in the writ petition which was filed alleging that there were illegal mining activities. This Court noticed that the 9th respondent review petitioner had necessary RP.1068/10 2 licences. This means that he is entitled to continue with the activity in terms of the licences to the extent for which licences are granted. This is his entitlement under the licences. That cannot be torpedoed by characterising it as unauthorised mining. However, if it exceeds the limits by way of going beyond the permitted area or mining in excess of the permitted quantity, it is a matter for the appropriate officer to necessarily put the matter to him and take appropriate action. The Village Officer’s stop memo, which is placed on record as Annexure XII, also is aimed only at unauthorised quarrying. Therefore, it is clarified that the directions contained in the judgment sought to be reviewed create no interdiction for the review petitioner, 9th respondent in the writ petition, to carry on activities in terms of the licences RP.1068/10 3 which he has, during the currency of such licences. The review petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.14/12.