Hareesh.S vs The State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 10894 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                         PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
         THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 /
                    12TH KARTHIKA, 1944
                 WP(C) NO. 25149 OF 2020
PETITIONER

          HAREESH.S
          AGED 42 YEARS
          S/O SUGUNAN, HARIKRISHNALAYAM(CHOOZHIKATTU )
          PALLIPPURAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
          PIN-688 536.
          BY ADVS.
          N.RATHEESH
          SMT.SUMA RATHEESH

RESPONDENTS

   1      THE STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
          MINING AND GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT
          SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
   2      THE GEOLOGIST,
          DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DISTRICT
          OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, CHERTHALA,
          ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 524.




          SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE GP


       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C) No. 25149 of 2020        2
]


                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2022

The petitioner states that he proposed to construct a

fuel outlet in Cherthala and obtained Building Permit. For the

construction of the fuel tank, when ordinary earth was

excavated, silica sand was found. The petitioner excavated

the sand and deposited it in the neighbouring property.

2. The petitioner submits that he did not know at that

time that the sand was silica sand, a valuable mineral. Now,

the petitioner wants to remove the silica sand from the

neighbouring property. The petitioner has no objection in the

Geologist taking the said silica sand. The petitioner is willing

to pay royalty as per the Rules, if required.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that for that purpose

though the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 application, the

Geologist is not accepting and entertaining the application.

Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

]

4. The Government Pleader entered appearance and

submitted that the Geologist has not received Ext.P7

application. The excavation of silica sand without informing

the Authorities is an illegality. For transportation of minerals

like silica sand, the Geologist cannot grant permission and

permission will have to be granted by the Government. If the

petitioner submits proper application, it can be processed in

accordance with the Rules and Regulations.

5. In view of the facts stated above, the writ petition can

be disposed of giving appropriate direction to the 2 nd

respondent.

6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of permitting

the petitioner to make appropriate application for removal of

the silica sand before the 2 nd respondent within a period of two

weeks. If the petitioner makes such an application, the 2 nd

respondent shall accept the same and process the application

in accordance with law, if necessary by forwarding it to the

Government. Taking into consideration the fact that the sand

] was excavated in the year 2015 for the construction of fuel

station and a fuel station is even functioning there now, the 2 nd

respondent shall not insist for production of a Development

Permit for processing the application.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

smm

]

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25149/2020

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE PLAN PROPOSED FOR THE RETAIL OUTLET AT CHERTHALA ISSUED BY THE TERRITORY MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPN EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN DATED 10.2.2015 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 10.2.2015 ISSUED BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER LASTLY ISSUED BY THE OWNER OF THE LAND DATED 21.10.2020 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO D.O.A/583/MM/16 DATED 21.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED 23.11.2016 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.10.2020 WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR REMOVAL OF SILICA AND AND RESTACK THE SAME, BUT ACCEPTED SO FAR