Pushparaj M.S. Vs the Geologist, Idukki

According to the petitioner, by Ext.P1 he made an application for a mining permit. On receipt of the application, the respondent issued Ext.P4 stating that the application cannot be considered in view of Ext.P6.

¶22

In my view, if the respondent is the statutory authority to consider Ext.P1, irrespective of the directions issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the respondent is liable to consider Ext.P1 on merits, in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules and pass orders thereon.

¶23

Therefore, I direct that on production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition, respondent shall consider Ext.P1 in accordance with law and pass orders thereon untrammelled by Ext.P6, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶24

Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)

JUDGE

vi/

WPC.No. /09

:2 :

Pushparaj M.S. v. the Geologist, Idukki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushparaj M.S. v. the Geologist, Idukki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Gopi Vs B.Suman Billa IAS

Jose v.Abraham Vs Dr.a.Jayathilak

K.v.Raman and Others Vs K.T.Raveendranath and Others

E.X.Xavier Vs K.N.Venugopalan

M.C.Padmanabhan Vs Mohanan

Johny Alex Vs P.K.Nalini