Suneer vs The Geologist
2024 Latest Caselaw 13291 Ker

Kerala High Court

Suneer vs The Geologist on 23 May, 2024

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

WP(C) NO. 26341 OF 2016            1



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
       THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                          WP(C) NO. 26341 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:

               SUNEER
               AGED 40 YEARS
               S/O. SAID MUHAMMED,KOCHUMADATHIL HOUSE,CHENGAMANAD
               PO.,PALAPRASSERY, ERNAKULAM

               BY ADV SRI.BABU S. NAIR



RESPONDENT/S:

      1        THE GEOLOGIST
               KERALA MINERAL SQUAD,CENTRAL REGION, THRISSUR680001

      2        THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST
               DEPARTMENT OF MINING ANDGEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE,
               PALAKKAD -678001


OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GP




       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 26341 OF 2016             2




                       P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                     --------------------------------------
                      W.P.(C.) No. 26341 of 2016
                     --------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2024



                               JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

"i) Call for the entire records leading up to Exhibit P2 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions;

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the first respondent to consider Exhibit P3 objections and pass orders on the same, forthwith without any further delay;

iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." [sic]

2. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the

learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no

instruction from the party. If that is the case, this writ petition

need not be retained here.

Therefore, this writ petition is closed.

SD/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26341/2016

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPYOF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF AN AMOUTN OF RS.65,000/0 BY THE PETITIONER DATED, 29.6.2015

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPYOF THE NOTICE ISSUE DTO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS NO.335/KMS(CR)/2015 DT, 16-7-2016

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS NO.335/KMS/(CR) 2015 DT. 30.07.2016