IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34613 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- NAVAS, KIZHAKKEKAVUNGAL VEEDU, AROOKUTTY, CHERTHALA TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJ MOHAN, SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM – 686 002. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM – 686 002. 3. TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM. 4. SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT MINING & GEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM – 686 002. 5. LT.COL.(RETD) DR.B.VENUGOPALAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, KOTTUVIRUTHIL HOUSE, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE, UDAYANAPURAM P.O., VAIKOM – 686 143. 6. LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, W/O.SEKHARAN NAIR, KOTTUVIRUTHIL HOUSE, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE, UDAYANAPURAM P.O., VAIKOM – 686 143. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.34613 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Based on Exts.P1 and P2 reports , first respondent issued No Objection Certificate to the petitioner. Consequently Ext.P4 permit was issued by the Senior Geologist. On the basis of Exts.P3 and P4, petitioner started mining of ordinary sand from the property mentioned therein. 2. While so, the fourth respondent issued Ext. P5 order directing the petitioner to reclaim the neighbouring property and informed that or else the bank guarantee furnished by him will be forfeited. Thereafter, the third respondent issued Ext.P6 order directing the petitioner to stop the mining activities. 3. Exts.P5 and P6 orders were challenged before this Court in W.P (C) No.20718/2010. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment relegating the petitioner to pursue the appellate remedy available under Rule 49 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. W.P (C) No.34613 of 2010 2 Accordingly petitioner filed appeal and the said appeal is pending before the Government. 4. While so, by Ext.P8 proceedings of the first respondent, Ext.P3 No Objection Certificate has been cancelled. It is challenging Ext.P8, this writ petition is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the appeal filed by him pursuant to Ext.P7 judgment of this Court is pending consideration of the Government, the District Collector ought not to have cancelled Ext.P3 No Objection Certificate as per Ext.P8. 6. A reading of Ext.P8 shows that it is because of Exts.P5 and P6 proceedings that the District Collector initiated proceedings resulting in cancellation of No Objection Certificate. Since the validity of Exts. P5 and P6 is pending consideration of the Government in the appeal filed by the petitioner, and since Ext.P8 is consequential in nature, I feel what is possible is that the petitioner can seek restoration of Ext.P3, if he succeeds in the appeal filed by him. W.P (C) No.34613 of 2010 3 7. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the aforesaid course, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge