IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 24277 of 2010(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SELVADAS, S/O.BENSILY, MERCY BHAVAN MARATHAKIDY, URIYAKODE PO, PERUMKULAM NEDUMANGAD TALUK, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REVENUE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THRIVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REVENUE, COLLECTORATE, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, NEDUMANGADU, PIN-695 541. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUMKULAM, PIN-695 102. 6. SENIOR GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DISTRICT OFFICE, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. *ADDL. R7 TO R11 IMPLEADED ADDL. R7: SRI.AMBROSE, S/O.VYDANATHAN, VILAKATH VEEDU, PARAYAM, MARATHAKIDI, PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD, THRIVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. WP(C).No. 24277 of 2010(H) ADDL. R8: SATHYA DAS, BIJU BHAVAN, MARATHAKIDI PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. ADDL. R9: SALIJA KUMARI, RAJI BHAVAN, MARATHAKIDI PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 307. ADDL. R10: JOJI RAJ, POOMUGHATHIL VEEDU, MARATHAKIDI PERUMKULAM VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 307. ADDL. R11: GOPI, S/O.KESAVAN NADAR, PUTHEN VEETIL, THADIYOORKANAM, KIZHAKKUMKARA, VELLANADU MURI, VELLANADU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. *ADDL. R7 TO R11 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27/09/2010 IN I.A. NO.12487/2010. R1 TO R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.24277 of 2010 (H) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P14 order dated 19/02/2010 passed by the District Collector. 2. Petitioner states that he is the owner of 70 cents of land in survey No.15/23 of Block No.42 of Perumkulam Village in Thiruvananthapuram District. According to the petitioner, there is a quarry in this property, which on lease was operated by one Shri.Gopi during the period from 09/08/2001 to 08/08/2005. It is stated that thereafter from 05/09/2005, the petitioner was granted a 3 months' permit for quarrying. However, in relation to the period when Shri.Gopi was conducting quarrying, the petitioner was issued Exts.P5 & P7 notices. It is stated that Ext.P7 notice was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.3946/2006. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, based on Ext.P8 complaint, Exts.P9 & P10 orders prohibiting further quarrying were issued. Those orders were also challenged by the petitioner by filing WP(C) No.18367/2006. Both these writ petitions were WP(C) No.24277/2010 -2- disposed of by Ext.P10 common judgment dated 30/07/2009, directing reconsideration of the matter by the District Collector. In pursuance to the directions, it would appear that the District Collector called for a report from the Tahsildar, and accordingly Ext.P15 report was submitted by the Tahsildar. In the report so submitted, the Tahsildar pointed out existence of certain houses in the neighbourhood of the quarry. Thereafter the District Collector issued Ext.P14 order refusing permit to the petitioner to continue quarrying. It is challenging Exts.P14 & P15, the writ petition has been filed. 4. So far as Ext.P15 is concerned, since it is only a report submitted by the Tahsildar before the District Collector, it is for the District Collector to consider the report and take a decision in the matter. In that view of the matter, there is no reason to examine the validity of Ext.P15 report and therefore challenge against Ext.P15 is only to be rejected. 5. However, a reading of Ext.P14 impugned order passed by the District Collector shows that the District Collector has gone into only by the contents of Ext.P15 report of the Tahsildar and has WP(C) No.24277/2010 -3- not adverted to the rival contentions of the parties. In my view, Ext.P15 report, at best, could have only been a piece of evidence before the District Collector and that the District Collector ought to have applied his mind to the issue raised before him and it is only thereafter could he have passed Ext.P14 order. Since Ext.P14 does not show such an application of mind to the issues raised by the parties, I am not in a position to sustain Ext.P14. Therefore, I quash Ext.P14 order and direct the District Collector to reconsider the issue as directed in Ext.P12 judgment duly adverting to Ext.P13 representation submitted by the petitioner and Ext.P15 report submitted by the Tahsildar, with notice to all the parties. This exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg