Kerala High Court
Abdu O.K vs The Director, Mining And Geology on 6 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 42498 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
ABDU O.K.,AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. KUNHU MUHAMMED, OLANGAD,
NANNAMMUKKU NANNAMMUKKU SOUTH,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 679 575.
BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR, MINING AND GEOLOGY,
MINING AND GEOLOGY DIRECTORATE,
KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.
2 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 121.
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MINI CIVIL STATION, THIRURUR ,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 101.
4 THE TAHSILDAR, PONNANI TALUK,
PONNANI (PO), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN-679 583.
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
NANNAMMUKKU VILLAGE,
NANNAMMUKKU (PO) MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN 679 575.
6 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR FISHERIES,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
PONNANI (PO) MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 679 583.
WP(C) No.42498 of 2022 2
7 KOLLAN PUNCHACOL NELL ULPADANA SAMITHY REG.
NO.54/98,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAFEEK V.C.
VATTEKKATTU VALAPPIL, NANNAMMUKKU SOUTH,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 679 575.
R7 BY ADVS.
JOEMON ANTONY
SHERRY J. THOMAS(K/815/2002)
SR. GP JUSTIN JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.42498 of 2022 3
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
W.P (C) No.42498 of 2022
.................................................................
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2024
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 order
whereby the 1st respondent has rejected permission to remove clay
from the pond for the conduct of aqua culture. The primary contention
raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P4 order has been issued without
affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Petitioner
further contend that he has obtained necessary consents from the
concerned authorities as is evident from Exts.P5 and P6 and also
Ext.P3 licence from the 5th respondent and that the 1st respondent has
issued Ext.P4 order without taking into consideration Exts.P3, P5 and
P6.
2. Learned Government Pleader was directed to get instruction
regarding the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P4 was issued
without affording an opportunity of being heard to him. Learned
Government Pleader upon instruction submitted that the petitioner was
not heard before issuing Ext.P4.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent specifically
relying on Rule 10(f) of the Kerala Minor Minerals Concession Rules,
2015 submits that they have serious objection in petitioner removing
clay for the purpose of fish farming. Rule 10(f) of the said Rules
mandates that no quarrying operation shall be done within a distance of
50 metres from any reservoir, tanks, canals, rivers, bridges, other public
works, residential buildings, the boundary walls of places of worship,
etc. The learned counsel appearing for the 7 th respondent also relies on
Ext.R7A whereby a reply was given by the 2nd respondent that they
have already reported to the 1st respondent that permission shall not be
granted for the reason that the property is a low lying land and
excavation of clay will result in damage to the bunds, road and the
place of worship.
Whatever that may be, Ext.P4 order has been issued without
affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Therefore, the
1st respondent has to re-consider the matter after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In order to facilitate the
same, Ext.P4 order is set aside with a consequential direction to the 1 st
respondent to re-consider the request made by the petitioner in
accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner as well as 7th respondent. Both sides will be free to submit
notes of argument producing all the documents in support of their
contentions, which shall also be duly adverted to by the 1 st respondent
while re-considering the matter as directed above. A decision in this
regard shall be taken within an outer limit of two months from the date
of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
With the abovesaid direction the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
cks
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42498/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2752/2018 OF
S.R.O EDAPPAL DATED 18.08.2018.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 25.09.2022 ISSUED BY
THE VILLAGE OFFICER.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE
NO.MLP/FW/LIC/FISH-2020/66 DATED
09.11.2020.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT VIDE NO.DMG/761/2022/M4
DATED 15-11-2022.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
DATED 23-03-2021.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER DATED 05-01-2022
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R7 A The true copy of the letter dated 02-
08-2022 issued by the Senior Geologist
of the 2nd Respondent's office to the
'Cheryamcol Karshaka Samithy'
Exhibit R7 B The series of photographs which shows
the puncha field, the 'Nooradi Thodu',
Mosque, road etc
Exhibit R 7C The true copy of the newspaper report
dated 07/07/2005
