Disposed

T.N.Babu v. the Senior Geologist

Kerala HC21 May 2012WP(C)/5739/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the court directed the Senior Geologist and the District Collector to decide on a petitioner's representation regarding the use of mechanical devices for mining ordinary sand. The petitioner relied on a prior judgment allowing similar operations for another permit holder. The court ordered a decision within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Decision on the petitioner's representation to use mechanical devices must be taken within six weeks.

T.N.Babu Vs the Senior Geologist — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2012/31ST VAISAKHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 5739 of 2012 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

T.N.BABU,, AGED 42 YEARS,

¶8

S/O. NARAYANAN, THEKKUMKATTIL HOUSE, MEVELLOR. P.O KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.MOHAMMED YOUSEFF (SR.)

¶10

SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SMT.MOLLY JACOB SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K.

¶11

SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST,

¶14

DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY

¶15

KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 030.

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶17

CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM

¶18

COCHIN - 682 030.

¶19

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.A.SANJEETHA.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No.5739/2012

¶22

A P P E N D I X

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT GRANTED BY THE GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM, FOR MINING ORDINARY SAND.

¶25

EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23-01-2012 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT VACATING THE STAY ORDER.

¶26

EXT.P2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-02-2012 PASSED BY THE GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM TO RENEW THE PERMIT. EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)19050 OF 2011. EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 22-02-2012 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

// True Copy //

P.A. to Judge.

smp

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶32

--------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.5739 OF 2012

¶33

--------------------------------------Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2012.

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The petitioner is said to be a holder of licence/permit for mining ordinary sand from 20 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.V 810/8C of Piravom Village. The main prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 representation so as to enable the petitioner to use mechanical device including motor pump to carry on the mining operations as per Ext.P2(a) order in the light of Ext.P3 judgment in favour of another permit holder.

¶36

It is averred in the writ petition that the Geologist, Ernakulam has granted permit for mining ordinary sand in the year 2005. The District Collector, Ernakulam issued No Objection Certificate and Ext.P1 is the copy of the permit for quarrying ordinary sand. Ext.P2(a) is the proceedings of the Senior

¶37

W.P.(C) No.5739/2012 2

¶38

Geologist dated 18.02.2012 which renews the permit. Going by the same, it can be seen that the Senior Geologist allowed the renewal application of the petitioner and granted permission for transport of the balance stock of 450MT and further allowed to mine 1436 MT of ordinary sand from the area comprised in survey No.V810/8C within a period of four months from the date of issue of the order.

¶39

The petitioner is relying upon Ext.P3 judgment of this Court in the case of another permit holder. Therein the direction was to consider the representation for enabling the petitioner therein to use mechanical device for mining operations covered by Ext.P2 permit. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the 1^st respondent may be directed to take a decision on Ext.P4 within a time frame.

¶40

It is made clear that this Court has not considered anything on the merits of the claim. It is upto the 1^st respondent to take a decision on Ext.P4 in accordance with law and in terms of the relevant statutes, rules or executive orders in the matter. Appropriate decision will be taken and communicated to the

¶41

W.P.(C) No.5739/2012

¶42

¶43

petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶44

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶45

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE

¶46

smp

T.N.Babu v. the Senior Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.N.Babu v. the Senior Geologist

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

Pramod Kumar V.P. Vs District Officer, Kpsc

Sajeev Kumar.S. Vs Government of Kerala & Others

C.T.Devassy Vs Pension Board

Abraham C Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Shahina.P.T Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Ali Vs the District Collector