Saralakumari vs District Geologist
2022 Latest Caselaw 8016 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944
                     WP(C) NO. 21194 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

            SARALAKUMARI,
            AGED 54 YEARS
            D/O. RAJAGOPALAKURUP, KRISHNAVILASAM, MALOOR,
            PATTAZHI, VADAKKEKARA, PATHANAPURAM.
            BY ADVS.
            R.SUNIL KUMAR
            A.SALINI LAL

RESPONDENT:

            DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
            DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, MINING AND
            GEOLOGY OFFICE, ASHRAMAM GROUND, KOLLAM 691
            002.



            SRI. SYAMANTHAK, GP


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING    COME   UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   29.06.2022,   THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING
 W.P.(C) No.21194/2022
                                   2



                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29th day of June, 2022

The petitioner, who is owner of 22.50 Ares of property in

Re-Survey No.142/4 of Pattazhi Vadakkekara Village of

Pathanapuram Taluk has approached this Court seeking to

direct the respondent to issue mineral Transit Pass to the

petitioner, within a time frame.

2. The petitioner states that her property was lying in

a higher terrain, at different levels, than the neighboring

properties and the petitioner wanted to use the property for

maximum utility. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an

application for Building Permit which was issued by the

Panchayat. Now, the petitioner requires Transit Pass under

the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules,

2015 for removal of ordinary earth to facilitate building

construction. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application

before the respondent for issuance of Transit Pass. Unless

the respondent takes a decision on Ext.P1 and issues Transit W.P.(C) No.21194/2022

Pass, the petitioner will find it difficult, contended the counsel

for the petitioner.

3. The Government Pleader entered appearance and

resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader, however,

submitted that since Ext.P1 application is of statutory nature,

it can be considered and orders can be passed thereon in

accordance with law. The Government Pleader submits that

more than 300 applications are pending before the

respondent and sufficient time may be granted to the

respondent to take a decision in the matter.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

5. The petitioner wants to construct building in her

property. Building Permit was obtained. For construction of

building, ordinary earth has to be excavated and transported,

for which mineral Transit Pass is required. The petitioner has

submitted application to the respondent for issuance of

Transit Pass. It is a requirement under the Kerala Minor

Mineral Concession Rules, 2015.

W.P.(C) No.21194/2022

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ

petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider

Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner and pass

appropriate orders thereon, within a period of two months.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE AJ W.P.(C) No.21194/2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21194/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.05.2022.