IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25431 of 2009(Y)
1. MATHEW JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
2. JOHNS MATHEW, PALAKUNNEL HOUSE,
3. BINOY THOMAS,
4. SUKUMARAN M.K., MADATHIKUDY HOUSE,
5. SOMESH KUMAR P.V.,
6. DIPU M.V., MUKALEL HOUSE,
7. K.J.GEORGE,
8. C.K.CHANDRAN, CHAKKIMANIKUNNEL HOUSE,
9. MATHUKUTTY K.J.,
10. P.B.SURESH,
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE GEOLOGIST,
For Petitioner :SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :16/09/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.
—————————————-
W.P.(C) No.25431 of 2009
—————————————-
Dated 16th September, 2009
Judgment
Heard Sri.Jobi Jose Kondody, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and Sri.C.P.Sudhakara Prasad, the learned Advocate
General appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioners, ten in number, are dealers in ordinary
sand. Exts.P1 to P10 are copies of the dealers’ licences issued to
them by the Geologist of Idukki district under rule 48 C of the Kerala
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. The licences were issued to
them in the months of March, July and August, 2009. By Ext.P11
series of orders which are impugned in this writ petition, the
Geologist cancelled the dealers’ licences issued to the petitioners.
The petitioners submit that before the dealers’ licences issued to
them were cancelled, they were not put on notice or heard. They
also contend that the District Collector, Idukki had only directed
cancellation of quarrying permits alleging violation of the conditions
of permit and as they are not engaged in quarrying activity and are
only dealers in sand, the Geologist acted arbitrarily in cancelling
their dealers’ licences.
W.P. (C)No.25431/2009 2
3. The learned Advocate General appearing for the
respondents does not dispute the fact that the petitioners were not
heard before their dealers’ licences were cancelled. The learned
Advocate General fairly conceded that the District Collector and the
officers of the Mining and Geology Department intended only to stop
unauthorised quarrying and that the Geologist will issue notice to
the petitioners and hear them, afresh.
4. In the light of the admitted fact that Exts.P1 to P10
dealiers’ licences were cancelled without notice to the petitioners
and without affording them an opportunity to state their case, I am
of the opinion that Ext.P11 series of orders which are impugned in
this writ petition cannot be sustained. The Geologist has not in the
impugned orders, set out the grounds on which dealers’ licences
issued to the petitioners are liable to be cancelled. The impugned
orders disclose that the District Collector had only directed that
quarrying should be stopped. I accordingly allow this writ petition,
quash Ext.P11 series of orders impugned in this writ petition and
direct that the petitioners will be entitled to continue to operate
their dealers’ licences in terms of the conditions and stipulations
therein. I make it clear that nothing contained in this judgment will
stand in the way of the respondents from proceeding against the
W.P. (C)No.25431/2009 3
petitioners in accordance with law if grounds exist for cancellation of
the dealers’ licences issued to them.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
vaa