IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14513 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUDHEER, S/O. GOPI, AGED 41, MULLAKKERITHARA, VADAKUMMURI, VAIKOM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ SRI.P.PRIJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001. 2. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 3. THE MINING AND GEOLOGY DIRECTOR, MINING & GEOLOGY DIRECTORATE, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. GP SRI. P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).14513/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the first respondent on 14.12.2010, whereby the NOC dated 4.8.2010 issued to the petitioner has been cancelled, referring to infringement of some of the conditions of the NOC, particularly in conducting mining activity in the area not covered by the NOC. Pursuant to Ext.P5, the third respondent has issued Ext.P6 dated 28.2.2011, which is also impugned in the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. It is revealed from the materials on record that Ext.P5 order was passed by the first respondent without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as to the adverse circumstances noted therein. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action on the part of the first respondent is wrong and misconceived. No notice whatsoever regarding the alleged inspection was ever given to the petitioner, nor was he informed before passing Ext.P5, which is sought to be intercepted. W.P.(C).14513/11 2 3. After hearing both the sides and in view of the admitted pleadings, the petitioner cannot have any right to conduct mining operation in the premises not covered by Ext.P1 NOC. However, since the impugned order (Ext.P5) has been passed without hearing the petitioner, there is clear violation of the principles of natural justice and this Court finds that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the first respondent. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P5 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is made clear that if any violation of the terms of NOC already given on 4.8.2010 is made by the petitioner, it is open to the first respondent to proceed against the same, by resorting to appropriate proceedings and procedure in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs