IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31812 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.ANIL KUMAR,S/O.LATE KARUNAKARAN AMBALAKKARA HOUSE,KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT (FROM SREE VILASOM,EZHUKONE,KOTTARAKKARA,KOLLAM) BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.SAIJU S. SRI.C.SINOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, CIVIL LINES,KOLLAM 691 013. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE,CIVIL LINES,KOLLAM 691 013. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 4. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST,MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,ASRAMAM,KOLLAM. 5. THE POOYAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH , REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,POOYAPPALLY,KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES,KENDRIYA BHAVAN,KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 7. THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, 1-40,MARSHELLS ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI-600 008. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.31812 OF 2010(B) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the owner of 68.37 ares of property comprised in Sy. No.216/1-2 of Pooyappally Village in Kollam District. In respect of the aforesaid land, the petitioner has obtained Ext.P2 quarrying permit which is valid till 20.12.2010. Although, he has obtained Ext.P3 P.Form and Ext.P4 consent of the Pollution Control Board, quarrying is conducted by his lessee on the strength of Ext.P5 agreement. It is also seen that the lessee is having Ext.P6 licence. 2. The present grievance of the petitioner is about Ext.P12, an order issued by the 3rd respondent prohibiting further quarrying. Such order was issued on the basis of Ext. P13 order passed by this court in WP(c).No.5452/2010. The contention raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P13 order has been issued with reference to the quarries in Wayanad District and therefore the 3rd respondent could not have issued Ext.P12 prohibitory order. WPC.No. 31812/2010 :2 : 3. However, a reading of Ext.P13 order shows that this court issued the said oder for the reason that the quarries in Wayanad District were being operated by the lessees on the strength of explosive licenses obtained by them and not by quarry owners who have obtained quarrying permit. Thus it is obvious that the facts of the case, which made this court to pass Ext.P13 order are similar in all respects to the facts of the petitioner's quarry also. Therefore Ext.P12 prohibitory order cannot be faulted on the ground urged by the petitioner. 4. According to the petitioner he had already applied to the first respondent for LE-3 licence to be issued under the Explosive Rules, 2008. It is his case that, on receipt of Ext.P8, Ext.P9 order was issued requiring the petitioner to produce AE-12 and DE-1 forms and were obtained by him as per Exts.P10 and P11 and produced before the first respondent. Petitioner now complains that despite having produced Exts.P10 and P11 the first respondent has not so far forward NOC to the 7th respondent for processing the application. 5. Therefore, although I upheld Ext.P12 prohibitory order passed by the 3rd respondent, if as stated by the petitioner he has WPC.No. 31812/2010 :3 : filed an application for LE-3 license and AE-12 and DE-1 forms have been produced as per Ext.P10 ad P11, it is directed that within 4 weeks of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the first respondent shall forward the NOC to the 7th respondent for processing the application made by the petitioner and the 7th respondent shall pass final order in the matter within 4 weeks thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/