IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 15799 of 2011(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- A.K.SURENDRAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS, AREEKARA HOUSE, KARIKODE.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. GEOLOGIST, MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM,PIN-686 002. 2. TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN-686 141. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.15799/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE SAND DEALERS' LICENCE BEARING NO.72/2010- 11/O.S./DL/642/DOY/ML/2010 DATED 7/4/2010, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, VALID UP TO 31/3/2011. P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11/5/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT DATED 11/5/2011 EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF FEE OF RS.4,000/- FOR RENEWING THE SAND DEALERS' LICENCE. P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16/5/2011 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30/5/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.783/DOY/ML/2011 DATED 8/6/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 15799 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 12th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is a licence issued to the petitioner under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. On expiry of the licence period, petitioner sought its renewal. That is now declined by Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st respondent. It is this order which is under challenge. The reason stated in Ext.P6 for declining renewal of the licence is that the site of the petitioner is situated within 3 Kms from the Muvattupuzha river, and that, if renewal is granted, the licence is likely to be misused. 2. In my view, both these considerations are irrelevant. The fact that the site of the petitioner is situated within 3 Kms were a relevant consideration, the first licence itself could not have been granted. Further, the possibility of misuse can also be no reason for declining the application for renewal. In such circumstances, I set aside Ext.P6 and direct that the respondents shall consider Ext.P2 application for renewal made by the petitioner in accordance with law and fresh orders in the matter WPC No. 15799/11 :2 : will be passed on the production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp