IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 2058 of 2010(F) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ROY KURIAN, THANNIKODE HOUSE, CHELADU P.O, MANAGING DIRECTOR, BASELLEUS MINING & GRANITES INDIA (P) LTD, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES SOUTH CIRCLE, 140, RUKMINI LAKSHMIPATHY SALAI, EGMORE, CHENNAI - 8. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K. RAMESH, R5 BY MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.2058/2010-F: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION IN FORM 1 DTD. 08/02/2008 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR NOC DTD. 26/02/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NOC DTD. 12/02/2009 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE THE QUARRY OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DTD. 11/04/2008. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M4/13310/08/K. DIS. DTD. 05/07/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE R.4. DTD. 23/06/2008 ISSUED TO THE R.2. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 31/10/2008 PASSED BY THE R.2. AND ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DTD. 05/12/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 23/12/2009 IN LR (A) 5-54993/2008 PASSED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE SALE DEED OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER COMPRISED IN SURVEY NO.611/1A/211/78/267 DTD. 08/02/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.2058 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s.Baselleus Mining & Granites India (P) Limited, a company who is engaged in mining building stones and crushing it using metal crusher from its property situated in Keerampara Village in Kothamangalam Taluk. 2. The petitioner approached the second respondent for obtaining No Objection Certificate to be produced before the fourth respondent in order to obtain permission for erecting magazine in the property of the Company. Ext.P2 is the copy of the application. It is pointed out that District Medical Officer has issued an No Objection Certificate as per Ext.P3 and Pollution Control Board issued No Objection Certificate as per Ex.P4. Subsequent steps were taken in the matter and the fourth respondent conducted a visit and to furnish a report. Later the third respondent passed an order dated 5/7/2008 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for obtaining NOC applied for as per Ext.P5 relying mainly on the report furnished by the fourth respondent. The petitioner sought for a W.P.(C)No.2058 of 2010 2 review of the same. But by Ext.P7 he was directed to file an appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner. Accordingly he preferred an appeal before the first respondent. Ext.P8 is the copy of the writ appeal. Ext.P9 is the order passed by the appellate authority remanding the case back to the third respondent which is under challenge in this writ petition. It is also submitted that petitioner has obtained licence from all the concerned departments. 3. Ext.P9 is only an order of remand. It cannot be said that the appellate authority has no power to remand the matter for fresh consideration. Evidently in Ext.P5 no proper decision was taken with respect to the entitlement of the petitioner based on various reports. Evidently it is in these circumstances, the matter was remanded. 4. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order to remand. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the order Ext.P9 it is mentioned that the magazine is to be establised in 1.25 Acres of land held by the company. It is submitted that the same is only a mistake. It is open to the petitioner to bring the correct facts about this aspect W.P.(C)No.2058 of 2010 3 to the Additional District Magistrate. It is made clear that all aspects will be considered by the Additional District Magistrate and appropriate orders shall be passed after hearing the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj