Disposed

Rajani K.C v. the District Geologist

Kerala HC7 Jul 2023WP(C)/9239/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a Mineral Transit Pass for removing ordinary earth to construct a building on owned land. The Geologist delayed consideration. The High Court directed the authority to decide the application expeditiously within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st Respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner and take an appropriate decision within two months.

Rajani K.C Vs the District Geologist — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 9239 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAJANI K.C

¶8

AGED 42 YEARS

¶9

W/O MANOJ, AGED 42 YEARS, AMBATTUPARAMBIL, PERAMBRA
P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 689.

¶10

BY ADV

¶11

BINOY VASUDEVAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, MINI CIVIL STATION, CHEMBOOKKAVU, THRISSUR,, PIN – 680 020.

¶14

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VARANTHARAPPILLY VILLAGE, VARANTHARAPPILLY (PO), THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 303.

¶15

BY ADV

¶16

DEVISREE. R - GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P(C) No.9239 of 2023

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 7 th. day of July, 2023

¶22

The petitioner, who is owner of 8.49 Ares of property in Survey No.834/8-3 of Varantharappilly Village of Chalakkudy Taluk in Thrissur District, has filed this writ petition seeking to direct the 1st respondent to issue Mineral Transit Pass to the petitioner.

¶23

The petitioner is owner of 8.49 Ares of property. The petitioner desires to construct a building in the property. The petitioner therefore approached the Local Self Government Institution and has obtained a Building Permit.

¶24

Construction of the building requires levelling of land and removal of ordinary earth. The petitioner therefore submitted Ext.P5 application to the 1^st respondent-Geologist seeking to issue Mineral Transit Pass to the petitioner for transportation of ordinary earth.

¶25

Though the application for Mineral Transit Pass was submitted on 23.12.2022, the 1^st respondent-Geologist has not considered the same. Unless the 1^st respondent considers the

¶26

W.P(C) No.9239 of 2023

¶27

¶28

application expeditiously and issues Mineral Transit Pass at the earliest, the petitioner will be put to untold hardship and financial loss, contends the petitioner.

¶29

Counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P6 communication of the 1^st respondent-Geologist seeking clarification from the 2^nd respondent-Village Officer on the ground that the land is shown as ‘lease hold rights’ in the Possession Certificate, is unsustainable because there is no such endorsement in the Possession Certificate and the petitioner will be able to produce the Possession Certificate without any such endorsement.

¶30

Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and defended the writ petition. The Government Pleader controverted all material allegations made by the petitioner, in the writ petition.

¶31

On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that a large number of applications for Mineral Transit Passes are pending consideration before the 1^st respondent-Geologist. Issuance of Mineral Transit Passes would require due verification of the credibility of application and may involve Site Visits also.

¶32

W.P(C) No.9239 of 2023

¶33

¶34

Considering the work load in the office of the 1^st respondent-Geologist, at least three months time is required to take a decision on such applications.

¶35

Government Pleader submitted that application for Mineral Transit Pass being a statutory application, if the petitioner has submitted application supported by all requisite documents, the same can be considered in accordance with law.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶37

The petitioner wants to construct a building in her property and has obtained a Building Permit. Construction of the building would require levelling of land and removal and transportation of ordinary earth. The petitioner therefore requires Mineral Transit Pass and has submitted an application for the same.

¶38

Rule 26(4) of the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015 declares that any consignment of minerals without a valid Transit Pass shall be

¶39

W.P(C) No.9239 of 2023

¶40

¶41

considered as illicit and the competent authority and authorised officer may recover the mineral from the person and also seize the receptacles in which the same is found and the carrier used in carrying the same.

¶42

The application submitted by the petitioner for Mineral Transit Pass therefore is a statutory requirement. The competent authority therefore is bound to consider the application in accordance with law within a reasonable time.

¶43

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 1st respondent-Geologist to consider Ext.P5 application filed by the petitioner and take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with

¶44

law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of

¶45

two months.

¶46

Sd/N .NAGARESH JUDGE

¶47

AMR

¶48

W.P(C) No.9239 of 2023

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9239/2023

¶51

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶52

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1267/2022 DATED
14.07.2022 OF S.R.O KODALY.

¶53

Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
NO.328/23 DATED 10.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
03.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT NO.A-
4/359627/2022 DATED 17.11.2022 ISSUED BY
THE SECRETARY OF VARANATHARAPPILLY GRAMA
PANCHAYAT.
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BY
THE PETITIONER ON 23.12.2022.
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.DOTHR-DMG/2687/2022-E DATED 20.01.2023
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.

Rajani K.C v. the District Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajani K.C v. the District Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.K.Sukumaran, Vs 1. Varantharapilly Grama Panchayat

Rejeena Thomas, Vs Varantharapilly Grama Panchayat

Ashwathy K. G., Vs Union of India

Shiju Kuriakose, Vs State of Kerala

Johnson Km S/O Varkey Mathai Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Kumar K.R Vs Nazer Km