IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7547 of 2009(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VENDOR PADASEKHARA NELLUTPADAKA SAMOOHAM REG. NO. 386/90, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY PRINCE MANJALI, AGED 36, S/O. M.A. FANCIS, VENDOR P.O., ALAGAPPA NAGAR, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. MINISTRY FOR AGRICULTURA, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR AYYANTHOLE, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE, COLLECTORATE, THRISSYUR. 5. THE GEOLOGIST, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON 11/03/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.7547 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Grievance in the writ petition is mainly regarding Ext.P1, GO (MS) No.21/09/Industry dated 07/02/2009. The petitioner submits that by this Government Order, several areas have been earmarked as areas having deposit of clay. It is stated that on the strength of Ext.P1, the parties will be indiscriminately permitted to mine clay without any safeguards or statutory compliances. 2. The learned Government Pleader, however, clarifies that by Ext.P1, all that is sought to be achieved is to earmark certain areas, where clay deposits are available. It is clarified that only locations are indicated in Ext.P1, and that the grant of permit for clay mining will be subject to all other existing conditions. 3. Now that the position has been clarified as above, the basis of which the petitioner has approached this Court has been proved to be incorrect. Therefore, recording the above clarification made on behalf of the respondents, the writ petition is closed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg