IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 27913 of 2006(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.R.NARAYANAN NAIR, PERUMPILLIL VEEDU, KALAMPOOR, PIRAVOM. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM. 3. DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, ERNAKULAM. 6. PIRAVOM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PIRAVOM. 7. GEOLOGIST, MINING & GEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 8. T.N.BABU, THEKKUMKATTIL, MEVALLOOR, VELLOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. Kss ..2/- ...2.... WPC.NO.27913/2006 W 9. SURESH BABU, VELIYATH HOUSE, ATHANI P.O., NEDUMBASSERY. *ADD.R10 TO R15 ARE IMPLEADED: R10. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.GOPI, PERUMPILLIL, KALAMPOOR, PIRAVOM. R11. ANANDAVALLY P.N., AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.P.N.NARAYANAN NAIR, PERUMPILLIL, KALAMPOOR, PIRAVOM. R12. T.K.PARAMESWARAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.T.G. KRISHNAN NAIR, THYKKAD, PIRAVOM. R13. SHEEJA PARAMESWARAN, AGED 30 YEARS, THYKKAD, PIRAVOM. R14. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, AGEDA 60 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, THYKKAD, PIRAVOM. R15. T.N.MANOHARAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.T.C. NARAYANAN, VYSAKHAM, PIRAVOM. (*ADDL.R10 TO R15 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 6/06/2008 IN I.A.NO.16035/06) BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA – R1 TO R5 & R7 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN - R6 SRI.T.M.MOHAMMED YOUSUFF(SR.) - R8 & R9 SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF - R8 & R9 SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS - ADDL.R10 TO R15 SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN(ADV.COMMISIONER) SMT.MOLLY JACOB - R8 & R9 SMT.ASHIFA YOUSEFF - R8 SMT.U.M.FOUSIA - R8 SMT.T.V.SREEJA - R8 SMT.M.KABANI DINESH - R8 & R9 SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K. - R9 SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI - R9 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.27913/2006 W APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE IN ITS MEETING HELD ON 15/2/2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE MASS PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PEOPLE IN THAT LOCALITY TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DTD. 12/04/2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN 'MALAYALA MANORAMA' DAILY NEWSPAPER DTD. 10/05/2006. EXT.P4: PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE EXTENT AND DANGER CAUSED TOT HE AGRICULTURAL LAND DUE TO THE ILLEGAL EXTRACTION OF SAND FROM THE AGRICULTURAL LAND HEADED BY THE 8TH AND 9TH RESPONDENTS. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DTD. 23/06/2006 TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PIRAVOM. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.11448/06 DTD. 5/07/2006 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 5/08/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PIRAVOM TO THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 7/10/2006 PASSED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, ERNAKULAM DTD. 19/10/2006. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 24/11/2006 ISSUED BY THE ADDL.TAHSILDAR, MUVATTUPUZHA. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT T.N.BABU DTD. 30/03/2006. Kss ..2/- ...2.... WPC.NO.27913/2006 W RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R8(A): COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 3/04/2008 IN I.A.NO.4708/08 AND 17030/06 IN WP(C) NO.27913/06.(I.A.NO.6818/2008) EXT.R8(B): COPY OF THE REGD.NOTICE DTD. 30/04/2008 ADDRESSED TO THE GEOLOGIST, MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, KAKKANAD.(I.A.NO.6818/2008) EXT.R8(A): COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 18/11/05 PASSED BY RDO. EXT.R8(B): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP9C) NO.5363/06 DTD. 2/03/06. EXT.R8(C): COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20/03/06. EXT.R8(D): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP9C) NO.16100/06 AND CONNECTED CASES. EXT.R8(E): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.234/06 DTD. 26/06/06 PASSED BY VILLAGE OFFICER. EXT.R8(F): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.15/06-07/DOE/653/E2/06 DTD. 18/07/2006 ON THE 7TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R8(G): COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. EXT.R8(H): COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE SAND LIFTED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.R8(I): COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE SAND LIFTED BY THE PETITIONERS. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 27913 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 6, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P9. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the 6th respondent Panchayat not to permit respondents 8 and 9 to carry on any sort of sand mining or sand sale from the agricultural land in the Panchayat area without obtaining the required licence from the authorities. 2. The primary challenge in this writ petition, as already noticed, is against Ext.P9. Ext.P9 is an order passed by the 4th respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha - in pursuance to the judgment of this court in WP(C) 16100/2006 and other connected cases. By this order (Ext.P9), the prohibitory order issued on 10.4.2006, against respondents 8 and 9 against their sand mining activities, was vacated subject to the condition laid down in the permit issued by the Geologist, Mining and Geology Department. 3. At the time when the enquiry leading to Ext.P9 was WP(C) 27913/06 2 pending, the permits that were issued by the Department are Exts.P12 and R8(f) which are in favour of the 8th respondent. Ext.P12 permit shows that it carried as many as 20 conditions and one of the conditions prescribed that the maximum depth of sand mining is restricted to 5 ft. The report of the Village Officer (Ext.P8) which was available before the Revenue Divisional Officer, indicates that sand mining to much more depth than what is permitted in Ext.P12 was already completed. The report concludes by saying that there exists a great concern among the neighbouring residents about the consequence of indiscriminate sand mining and that a detailed study is necessary into this. 4. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer, without taking note of the report in its totality and true perspective, concluded in Ext.P9 order that there is no scarcity of water in the wells in the neighbourhood on account of sand mining process. He has also found that there was no possibility of landsliding in the adjacent lands due to sand mining from the site. It is on this basis that the prohibitory order dated 10.4.2006 has been revoked and respondents 8 and 9 were permitted to carry on with the sand mining activities. 5. A combined reading of Ext.P8 report of the Village Officer WP(C) 27913/06 3 and Ext.P9 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer shows that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not considered the report submitted by the Village Officer in its true perspective. The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer suffers from non-consideration of relevant matters and hence cannot be upheld. He has not even adverted to violation of the permit conditions or the concern of the neighbouring residents about the consequences of such sand mining. The recommendation for conducting a study is also ignored. The RDO shall reconsider the matter in the light of the materials available and with notice to the petitioner and respondents 8 and 9, and orders thereon shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It will be open to the parties to produce and rely on any additional materials they may have. 6. The period of Ext.P12 permit, as extended by Ext.R8(f), has already expired and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 8 and 9 submits that an application for renewal of the permit is pending consideration of the 7th respondent. It is also stated that the 7th respondent has not passed orders on the renewal application on account of the pendency of this writ petition. 7. Now that the 7th respondent is the statutory authority to WP(C) 27913/06 4 consider the application for sand mining permits, it is necessary that once an application has been received from respondents 8 and 9 or either of them, to pass orders thereon. In the course of considering the application made by the aforesaid respondents, it will be open to the 7th respondent to conduct such enquiry as he deems fit. Thereafter, on the materials available, it is for the 7th respondent to consider the application made by respondents 8 and 9, with notice to the petitioner herein, and pass appropriate orders thereon. While doing so, the order to be passed by the RDO shall also be taken into account. This the 7th respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within four weeks of receipt of a copy of the order passed by the RDO, which shall be made available either by the petitioner or respondent 8 or 9, so that delay could be avoided. 8. It is also directed that if the decision of the 7th respondent is to grant sand mining permit, it will be the responsibility of respondents 4 and 7 to ensure that the conditions imposed in the sand mining permit are strictly enforced. 9. Circumstances of this case requires noticing of an affidavit filed by the 7th respondent. Pursuant to the order dated 1.12.2006, the 7th respondent has filed an affidavit to the effect WP(C) 27913/06 5 that the condition in Ext.P12 permit is to the effect that the depth measured from the highest to the lowest point shall not exceed 5 metres. He has also tried to explain that some of the conditions in the permit are inapplicable to sand mining permit. 10. Going by the plain terms of Ext.P12, I clarify that the stand the 7th respondent has taken in the counter affidavit does not seem to be consistent with the terms of the permit and it is surprising that he has chosen to interpret the permit conditions against the plain words of the permit and in a manner convenient to the permit holders. This stand of the 7th respondent is totally unacceptable and I clarify that once a permit is granted, it shall be his obligation to ensure that those conditions are fulfilled in its true spirit and as provided in the permit itself and not in a manner in which he interprets the same. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Issue copy on usual terms. mt/-