IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 12651 of 2011(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SAJEEV, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O GOPINATHAN, NUYAMPATTIPADVIL, CHEMPU P.O., KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA, SRI.P.V.PRAKASAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 002. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.12651/2011-F: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DEALERS LICENCE ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R.2. NO.DL 246/2010-2011/OS/DL/1517/DOY/ML/10 DTD. 23/09/2010. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 11/02/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO VAIKOM TAHSILDAR. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE AND COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE CHALAN RECEIPT DTD. 30/03/2011. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11/04/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.14186/2011-W DTD. 26/05/2011 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).12651/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT In this writ petition, the learned counsel seeks a direction for the disposal of Ext.P3, an application made by the petitioner before the second respondent in terms of the provisions contained under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. 2. In view of the limited nature of the relief sought for and in the light of Ext.P6 judgment, there will be a direction requiring the second respondent to consider Ext.P3 application in accordance with law and pass orders thereon, 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. 3. It is made clear that if the order passed is in favour of the petitioner, he can seek modification of Ext.P5 to that extent by making appropriate application to the second respondent. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs