IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 5460 of 2009(Y) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ MOHANA CHANDRAN, S/O. DAMODARAN PILLAI, MANIMANGALATHU, MEVELLOOR.P.O, VAIKOM TALUK, DIST. KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM SRI.M.MUKESH SMT.URSULA FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, BAKER JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL (RDO) PALA, DIST. KOTTAYAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM TALUK, VAIKOM, DIST. KOTTAYAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, DIST. KOTTAYAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 5460 OF 2009 (B) ==================== Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he made Ext.P5 application as required under Rule 5(2) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules for a sketch and plan of the land belonging to him. According to him, the purpose of that application was to apply and obtain a sand mining licence. Eventually the application was considered and was rejected by Ext.P10. In Ext.P10 order, the reason stated for rejection is that the intention of the petitioner is to use the land for sand mining and that the same will be in violation of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Utilization Order as well as the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. It is challenging Ext.P10, the writ petition has now been filed. 2. In my view, when an application is made under Rule 5(2) as stated above, all that the authority need to bother is whether the application can be allowed or not. It is not the concern of the authority as to what ultimately the applicant intends to achieve by the said sketch and plan. This position has also been accepted by this Court in the judgment in WP(C) No.22296/08, which is produced as Ext.P11. 3. For the above reasons, I set aside Ext.P10 and direct the 3rd WPC 5460/09 :2 : respondent to consider the petitioner's application dated 25/10/2008 for sketch and plan. Orders shall be passed on Ext.P5 application in the light of Ext.P11 judgment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp