IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1522 of 2011(M)
1. SHIBU P.M., PULICKACHALIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, MINING AND
... Respondent
2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.SIBY MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :17/01/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.1522 OF 2011(M)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Prayer sought in this writ petition is a direction for
consideration of Ext.P15 representation made by the petitioner for
renewing the permission for continuing quarrying operation.
However, it is seen that initially by Ext.P6 the first respondent
prohibited quarrying by the petitioner. That order was challenged
before this court in WP(c).No.28189/2010. That writ petition was
disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment directing that Ext.P6 be treated
as a notice and the petitioner be heard and fresh orders be
passed. Accordingly petitioner filed Exts.P8 and P9 objections. He
was heard by the Geologist and the Geologist passed Ext.P10
order dated 22.11.2010, upholding the prohibition imposed by
Ext.P6. Ext.P10 order was not challenged by the petitioner.
Subsequently, relying on Exts.P11 to P14, he has now filed
Ext.P15 and in this writ petition he seeks a direction for
consideration of Ext.P15 in the light of Exts.P11 to P14 ignoring
Ext.P10. In this writ petition petitioner also raised an alternate
plea of challenging Ext.P10.
WPC.No. 1522/2011
:2 :
2. In my view, primarily what the petitioner should do or
should have done was to pursue the appellate remedies available
against Ext.P10. The fact that certain orders are issued which are
beneficial to the petitioner are also to be taken advantage of in
the appeal to be filed. Therefore, I do not find any reason to
entertain this writ petition or direct consideration of Ext.P15.
In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition
leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue appellate remedies
against Ext.P10 taking advantage of Exts.P11 to P14. It is
directed that if the petitioner filed an appeal within 2 weeks from
today, the same shall be considered with notice to the petitioner
and pass appropriate orders within 6 weeks from the date of
production of a copy of the judgment.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/