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. 29673 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. S.VASUDEVAN NAIR, THAYYIL VEEDU, KUNNATHOOR EAST P.O., KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. VIJAYA DEVI, W/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, THAYYIL VEEDU, KUNNATHOOR EAST P.O., KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-1 3. THE GEOLOGIST, OFFICE OF MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM-1 4. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM-1 SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.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: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 29673 of 2010 H ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P3 and P4. Petitioner applied for mining permit for the removal of clay. Though, by Ext.P1 report of the Geologist, recommendation was made for grant of the permit, it is stated that request of the petitioner was finally rejected. Appeal was filed before the Government. That was also rejected by Ext.P3 order. Petitioner filed another appeal against Ext.P3 before the Government, which was also rejected by Ext.P4 order dated 05-06-2010. Petitioner sought for reconsideration of the matter by filing Exts.P5 and P6. There was no response and at this stage, this writ petition was filed. 2. Reason stated in Ext.P4 is contained in paragraph 5, which reads as under:- “ 5. The petitioner and his counsel were again heard on 19-05-2010. The matter was examined in detail after taking into WPC.29673/10 : 2 : account the contentions of both parties. On the basis of the directions given to the Director of Mining & Geology a field inspection was carried out by Sri.D.P. Sreekumar, Senior Geologist on 05-04-2010 in the averred area. During the inspection, the Geologist and Assistant Geologist of the District Office, Kollam and Special Village Officer concerned were also present. In the report furnished by Sri.D.P.Sreekumar, Senior Geologist it is stated that the averred area is situated on the bank of Kallada river and forms a part of the flood plain. The appellant had already extracted brick clay from the averred area on the strength of the Quarrying Permits issued from the Geologist, District Office, Kollam during the year 2002-03. Due to the above extraction the surface level of the averred area and the surrounding area has come down and also due to mining activities, most of the adjoining areas has become water logged, even during the month of April. It is also reported that the entire area has already become environmentally fragile and further WPC.29673/10 : 3 : mining in the area can accelerate the flooding of the entire area and there could be a drift in the course of the river. The Senior Geologist opined that since mining activity is likely to cause severe environmental degradation, it would be advisable to abstain from any such further mining activities in the averred area which would lead to severe environmental impact such as flooding, change of river course etc. Moreover the consent given by the Secretary, State Pollution Control Board also expired on 30-06-2009 and no further consent for mining has been given by the Pollution Control Board since 30-06-2009.” 3. A perusal of the above shows that it was only because of the environmental impact and for other relevant consideration that the mining permit sought for by the petitioner was rejected. There is nothing to show that the reasons contained in Ext.P4 are arbitrary or are vitiated for malafides. In such circumstances, this Court will not be justified in upsetting the said order. WPC.29673/10 : 4 : 4. However, petitioner has a case that mining is permitted in the neighbouring properties and, therefore, he alone could not have been discriminated. Even if the submission that mining is permitted in the neighbouring properties is factually correct, there is no material to conclude that those properties are similar in all respects. That apart, even if wrong permits are granted to other properties, there is no justification for the prayer made before this Court to order grant of permit to the petitioner. The writ petition fails. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks