High Court Kerala High Court

P.V.Thomas vs The District Collector on 25 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
P.V.Thomas vs The District Collector on 25 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 10085 of 2010(I)


1. P.V.THOMAS, AGED 43 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE GEOLOGIST,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :25/03/2010

 O R D E R
                 T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
               ---------------------------------------
                  W.P.(C) No.10085 OF 2010
               ---------------------------------------
           Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010.


                         J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is an applicant for obtaining quarrying permit

for mining sand from the property comprised in Survey No.407/6

(T.P.No.1789) of Anakkara village in Udumpunchola Taluk. As

per the amended rules namely, Kerala Minor Mineral Concession

Rules, a No Objection Certificate from the District Collector is

required for issuing quarrying permit and accordingly, Exhibit P2

application has been submitted.

2. It is submitted that the formalities for issuing the No

Objection Certificate by way of calling for reports from the

Tahsildar, Village Officer etc. are over and they have reported

that sand is available there and the mining can be permitted.

These submissions are supported by Exhibits P3 to P5

documents. Exhibit P7 is the copy of the report of the Geologist

dated 01.01.2010 wherein it is mentioned that there is sufficient

quantity of ordinary sand forming part of a plateau and that there

W.P.(C) No.10085/2010 2

will be no environmental problem if the permit is granted.

Thereafter, the District Collector has referred the matter to the

Deputy Collector (Trainee) who has filed Exhibit P8 report.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that Deputy Collector

(Trainee) is not an expert as far as various technical aspects are

concerned. It is also submitted that the District Collector may be

directed to verify the facts as reported by the Tahsildar, Village

Officer and the Geologist and take appropriate decision in the

matter.

4. Exhibit P11 is the judgment rendered by this Court in

W.P.(C) No.2282/2010 in similar circumstances wherein this

Court directed the matter to be considered in the light of the

report of the Geologist. A further direction was issued to inspect

the property by the officers of the Ground Water Department to

find out whether the mining will affect the availability of drinking

water.

Therefore, the said method can be adopted by the District

Collector to find out whether the mining will affect the availability

of drinking water and a report will be called for from the officers

W.P.(C) No.10085/2010 3

of the Ground Water Department. After considering various

reports including the report of the Geologist, Ground Water

Department etc., appropriate action will be finalized within a

period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the mining is proposed to be conducted only one

metre depth. The same also will be considered by the District

Collector while passing orders. The petitioner will produce a copy

of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment for

compliance.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE

smp