IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 21ST APRIL 2009 / 1ST VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 12411 of 2009(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------------- 1. AUGUSTINE.P.D.,PUTHEN PARAMBIL, THONNAKKADU,CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. SADASIVAN,S/O.ACHUTHAN, KANJIKKAL VADAKKATHIL, THONNAKKADU P.O.,CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR CIRCLE,MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. 5. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNUR,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 6. T.K.SOMAN,SECRETARY, KERALA STATE KARSHAKA THOZHILALI UNION (KSKTU), CHENGANNUR AREA COMMITTEE,CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN-689520. SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.12411 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 21st day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioners is that although they have obtained Exts.P1 to P4 permits, they were obstructed by the 6th respondent from continuing their mining activities. It is stated that in Ext.P8 judgment, this Court has already directed that it will be open to the petitioners to approach the authorities, if the mining activities of the petitioners on the strength of Exts.P1 to P4 permits are obstructed. The petitioners submit that subsequent to Ext.P8, in order to defeat the petitioners, Ext.P9 representation was made by the 6th respondent, on which the 5th respondent made an endorsement, as a result of which they had to stop the mining activities. It is stated that thereupon they submitted Ext.P10 representation to the 5th respondent appraising him of the true facts. But, however, no orders have been passed on Ext.P10. It is complaining of this, the writ petition has been filed. 2. Taking into account the above grievance in this writ petition, without expressing anything on the merits of the WP(C) No.12411/2009 -2- contentions raised by the petitioners, I direct the 5th respondent to consider Ext.P10, with notice to the 6th respondent, and pass orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg