IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17864 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MATHEW P.V., S/O.VARKEY, AGED 60, PULINIKKUMTHADATHIL, S.R.M.ROAD, KOCHIN-18. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ SRI.P.PRIJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM-686001. 2. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686001. GP RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17864 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.753 OF 2010 DATED 5.4.10 OF VAIKOM SRO EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.752 OF 2010 DATED 5.4.10 OF VAIKOM SRO EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 3.8.2010 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.9.2010 ISSUED BYTHE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19.11.2010 ISSUED BYTHE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 3.1.2011 ISSUED BYTHE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).13770/2011 DATED 24.5.2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF CHALLAN DATED 3.6.2011 FOR PAYMENT OF FEES FOR PERMIT EXT.P9- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A.238/2011 DATED 8.4.11 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT (True Copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J .......................................... W.P.(C).17864/2011 .......................................... Dated this the 8th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that on the strength of Ext.P4 order issued by the second respondent, he was conducting quarrying operations in his property in Vadakkumuri Village in Vaikom Taluk. Subsequently, the validity of Ext.P4 was renewed by Ext.P5 which was valid till 18.1.2011. In the meanwhile, Ext.P3 NOC, on the basis of which Exts.P4 and P5 were issued, was cancelled by the first respondent as per Ext.P6 order dated 3.1.2011. 2. Ext.P6 was called in question before this Court in W.P.(C). 13770/2011 and that writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P7 judgment quashing Ext.P6. Subsequently petitioner sought renewal of Ext.P5 and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, an application along with Ext.P8 chelan receipt, was submitted to the second respondent. However, the second respondent has not so far considered the same. Therefore, seeking orders compelling the second respondent to pass orders on his application, this writ petition is filed. W.P.(C).17864/11 2 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, particularly having regard to Ext.P7 judgment referred to above, the second respondent is bound to consider the application made by the petitioner if the same has been received and is pending. 5. Therefore, I direct that the second respondent shall consider the application stated to have been made by the petitioner for renewal of Ext.P5. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs