Vipin Das vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 18858 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
     FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 19TH BHADRA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 18594 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

             VIPIN DAS,
             AGED 37 YEARS
             S/O.MUKUNDAN,
             KOMATHU HOUSE,
             NANTHIKKARA, THRISSUR.

             BY ADV SUNIL JACOB JOSE



RESPONDENT/S:

       1     STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
             GOVERNMENT,
             INDUSTRIES (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

       2     THE DIRECTOR (MINING AND GEOLOGY),
             DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
             KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

       3     SENIOR GEOLOGIST,
             DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
             DISTRICT OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION,
             CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR-20.



             SMT. SURYA BINOY.B. SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER




       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON    10.09.2021,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 18594 OF 2021
                                2



                           JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following

reliefs:-

(i) Call for the records leading Exhibit. P10 and quash and set aside Ext.P7 and P10;

(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 3 rd respondent to accept the additional documents produced by the petitioner along with Ext.P9 and forward the same to the 2 nd respondent immediately;

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the 2nd respondent to immediately process and forward to the 1st respondent, the application of the petitioner dated 1/2/2021 along with its enclosures including the additional documents submitted before the 3 rd respondent, as directed in Ext.P6.

WP(C) NO. 18594 OF 2021

(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction to the 1st respondent to consider the application of the petitioner and grant special permission as contemplated under Rule 104 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2015, to remove the clay accumulated in the property, as applied for, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Government Pleader.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner who is a Power of Attorney

holder of Smt. Shobha Vijayan and her two sons, carrying

out Agricultural operations including fish farming in their

property in question. It is submitted that as part of

preparatory work for starting fish farming, removal of mud

and clay from the property was became necessary in terms WP(C) NO. 18594 OF 2021

of Rule 104 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules,

2015. The petitioner had approached the Government

with a request for a special permission to extract and

remove minor mineral contents in the special

circumstances. By Exhibit P5 judgment, this Court had

directed consideration of the said application. It is

submitted that on 18.06.2021, Exhibit P6 communication

had been issued to the petitioner requiring him to produce

certain documents including an opinion from the Gramin

Bank, where the property was mortgaged with regard to

the extraction of the minerals. It is submitted that the

petitioner had taken some time for obtaining the

documents so sought for, and that the documents had

been obtained and produced before the 3rd respondent on

30.08.2021. However, in the meanwhile, without awaiting

the documents as required, it is submitted that Exhibit P7

order has been passed by the Government rejecting the WP(C) NO. 18594 OF 2021

request made by the petitioner on the ground that he was

unable to produce the documents within the time granted

by the respondent for a consideration of the application.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

though the documents could not be produced immediately

after Exhibit P6, the petitioner had, as a matter of fact,

submitted the documents before the 3 rd respondent as

early as possible and that the return of the documents by

Exhibit P10 by the 3rd respondent on the ground that the

order had already been passed by the Government is,

therefore, contempt and the issue is liable to be

considered on the merits, taking note of the fact that the

petitioner has actually produced all the documents called

for, before the 3rd respondent on 30.08.2021.

5. The learned Government Pleader would submit

that Exhibit P5 was a time bound direction and that the

petitioner had been required by Exhibit P6 to produce the WP(C) NO. 18594 OF 2021

documents. It is submitted that it was on account of the

fact that the documents were not produced by the

petitioner in time, that Exhibit P7 order was passed

rejecting the request.

6. Having considered the contentions advanced and

in view of the submissions made across the Bar, I am of

the opinion that the issue requires a reconsideration by the

1st respondent after considering the documents now

produced by the petitioner. In view of the fact that the

petitioner has produced the entire documents sought for in

Exhibit P6 before the 3rd respondent by Exhibit P9 dated

30.08.2021, the rejection of the request made by the

petitioner on the ground that the Government had already

considered and rejected the issue was unwarranted.

7. I am of the opinion that the issue requires a

reconsideration. There will be a direction to the 3 rd

respondent to forward Exhibit P9 along with the WP(C) NO. 18594 OF 2021

documents produced by the petitioner to the 2 nd

respondent, who in turn shall forward the documents to

the 1st respondent for a fresh consideration of the

application for special permission. On receipt of the

documents from the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent

shall take up the request made by the petitioner for special

permission and reconsider the same taking note of the

documents forwarded by the 2nd respondent as well.

Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of one

month from the date on which the documents are

forwarded by the 2nd respondent and received by the 1st

respondent. The 3rd respondent shall forward the

documents within a period of two weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall

produce a copy of this judgment before the 3 rd respondent

for compliance. For a proper consideration of the matter

at the hands of the 1st respondent, Exhibits P7 and P10 WP(C) NO. 18594 OF 2021

shall stand set aside.

This Writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE avs WP(C) NO. 18594 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18594/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2-

9712/2020/D.DIS DATED 09.10.,2020 OF THE RDO.

Exhibit P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION C3-

774/2021 DATED 29.01.2021 OF THE RDO ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.245/C2/TDO/2021 DATED 16.02.2021 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.2364/M1/2021 DATED 16.03.2021 ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.8773/2021 DATED 16.04.2021.

Exhibit P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.245/D2/TDO/2021 DATED 18.06.2021 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.07.21 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATED DATED 31/8/2021 ISSUED BY THE KERALA GRAMIN BANK IRINJALAKUDA BRANCH

Exhibit P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.08.2021 OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE WP(C) NO. 18594 OF 2021

3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.245/D2/TDO/2021 DATED 03.09.2021 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER.