IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4016 of 2009(C) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------- JULA THILAKAN,AGED 42 YRS,W/O.THILAKAN, KOTTIKKAL HOUSE, MULANGU.P.O, THOTTIPPAL, THRISSUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE GEOLOGIST,DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THRISSUR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERPU POLICE STATION. 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERPU POLICE STATION. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 4016 OF 2009 (C) ==================== Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is against Ext.P3 order passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the application made by the petitioner for removal of ordinary earth. The view taken by the 1st respondent in Ext.P3 is that he is not the competent authority since the ordinary earth is not considered as a minor mineral and therefore the proper course to be adopted by the petitioner is to make application to the Revenue Divisional Officer. 2. The application made by the petitioner was pursuant to the direction of this Court in WP(C) No.1275/09. In that judgment, following the Division Bench judgment in Construction Material Movers Association and Others v. State of Kerala (2008(4) KLT 909), this Court directed that the application shall be considered by the 1st respondent. It is that application which has been disposed of by Ext.P3 in the manner stated above. 3. A reading of the judgment in Construction Material Movers Association case referred to above shows that the Division Bench of this Court has held that ordinary earth is a minor mineral. In the concluding portion of the judgment, it is also held that the parties should make WPC 4016/09 :2 : applications in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules and it is the 1st respondent, who is the authority and therefore the stand taken by the 1st respondent in Ext.P3 is erroneous. Therefore, Ext.P3 will stand quashed and the 1st respondent shall reconsider the application made by the petitioner in the light of the judgment referred to above. 4. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the judgment of this Court referred to above and thereupon, the 1st respondent shall reconsider the application and pass orders within 4 weeks of its receipt. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp