IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14073 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.T.SAJEEVAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN, KOCHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, SOUTH PAROOR (PO), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686 002. 2. THE GEOLOGIST, MINING & GEOLOGY DISTRICT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE (PO), KOTTAYAM-686 002. SR GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).14073/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner, who was granted a dealer's licence under Rule 48C of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, as borne by Ext.P1 for stocking and selling sand, filed necessary application for renewal of the same in view of the expiry of Ext.P1 on 31.3.2011. However, petitioner has been served with Ext.P2 reply dated 5.5.2011 issued by the second respondent stating that the application for renewal cannot be considered in view of some instructions stated as issued by the first respondent, that no such applications in the Vaikom Taluk need be considered in view of the alleged misuse of the forms with intent to discourage the dealers from pursuing such activities. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Going by the admitted facts and figures as given in Ext.P2, no specific order or relevant provision of law is cited to sustain non-issuance of the licence, but for the outcome of some discussion with the first respondent. It is also brought to the notice of this Court, as put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is no case against the petitioner so far as to W.P.(C).14073/11 2 any issuance of the dealers licence issued to the petitioner and as such, the rights and liberties of the petitioner are not liable to be tampered under any circumstances by way of astrological assumptions. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not require any second thought to set aside Ext.P2 and accordingly, the same is set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the application preferred by the petitioner for renewal of Ext.P1 licence in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders strictly in tune with the relevant provisions of law and untrammelled by the alleged instructions. The proceedings shall be finalised as above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two 'weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs