IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28189 of 2010(W)
1. SHIBU P.M.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SIBY MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :17/09/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.28189 of 2010 (W)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 17th day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is an assignee of the land covered by Ext.P1 patta.
In respect of the land, he had also obtained Ext.P2 quarrying permit
for the period till 16/08/2010. According to the petitioner, he
submitted an application for renewal of Ext.P2 permit. But however
the same has not been accepted in view of Ext.P6 order.
2. Ext.P6 is the proceedings of the Geologist dated
26/07/2010, canceling the quarrying permit. This order was issued
in pursuance to the directions of this Court in Ext.P7 judgment
dated 13/08/2009 in WP(C) No.9605/2008. According to the
petitioner, his case is not covered by Ext.P7 judgment, and that
therefore, Ext.P6 order cancelling Ext.P2 quarrying permit is also
illegal. It is also his case that, at any rate, such an order could not
have been issued without putting notice on affected parties
including himself.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General, who appeared for
WP(C) No.28189/2010
-2-
the respondent, pointed out that the period of Ext.P2 permit has
already been expired. It is also his case that in the light of Ext.P6
order issued in pursuance to the directions of this Court in Ext.P7
judgment, the petitioner is not entitled to seek renewal of Ext.P2
permit or issuance of a fresh one.
4. Admittedly, what is sought for by the petitioner is grant
of a permit. Ext.P6 order contains a virtual prohibition. Therefore,
unless the petitioner succeeds in establishing his case against
Ext.P6 order, the petitioner cannot seek either renewal of Ext.P2
permit or issue of a fresh one.
5. Admittedly, Ext.P6 order has been issued without putting
notice on the petitioner, and in view of the consequences that
ensued from Ext.P2 permit, the said order could not have been
passed in the manner it is done. Therefore, having regard to the
fact that Ext.P6 order has been passed without complying with the
principles of natural justice, I am inclined to think that the same
shall be treated as a notice enabling the petitioner to file his
objections against the same, and that the respondent should hear
the petitioner and pass fresh orders duly adverting to the
WP(C) No.28189/2010
-3-
contentions that he may urge.
6. In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition
directing that Ext.P6 will be treated as a notice calling upon the
petitioner to show cause why prohibition as contemplated therein
shall not be endorsed. It will be open to the petitioner to file his
objections to Ext.P6 within three weeks from today, in which event,
the respondent will hear the petitioner within two weeks thereafter
and pass fresh orders in the matter. It is made clear that in the
meanwhile, on the strength of this judgment, the petitioner shall
not carry on any activity, which is prohibited by Ext.P6.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along
with a copy of this writ petition before the respondent for
compliance.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg