IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1172 of 2011(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. THOMAS, MUTTANTHOTTY,MALAYATTOOR KARA, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE,MALAYATTOOR 683 587, ALUVA TALUK. 2. SALLY THOMAS,MUTTANTHOTTY, MALAYATTOOR KARA,MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE, MALAYATTOOR 683 587, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.PIN- 682 030 3. THE GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM.PIN- 682 030 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA.PIN- 683 101 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE, MALAYATTOOR , ERNAKULAM.PIN- 683 587 R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.1172 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 13th January, 2011 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, he made Ext.P9 application to the 5th respondent for a possession certificate and location sketch to seek renewal of his license to operate his quarry. It is stated that the fifth respondent forwarded the application to the 4th respondent and that the 4th respondent rejected the application by Ext.P10 order stating that since the Mining and Geology Department are awaiting directions from the Government regarding the grant of mining permits, at this stage, it is not possible to grant possession certificate and location sketch for making application for obtaining renewal of mining license. 2. In my view, the application made by the petitioner, irrespective of the purpose which it is made, was only for a possession certificate and location sketch. When such an application is considered, the end use for which is going to be utilised by the applicant is irrelevant as far as respondents 4 and 5 are concerned. Therefore, W.P (C) No1172 of 2011 2 the 4th respondent could not reject Ext.P9 application on the ground mentioned in Ext.P10. 3. In that view of the matter, I set aside Ext.P10 and direct that the 4th respondent will reconsider Ext.P9 and pass orders thereon. This the 4th respondent shall do, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy. P.A to Judge W.P (C) No1172 of 2011 3