S VASUDEVAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P3 and P4. Petitioner applied for mining permit for the removal of clay. Though, by Ext.P1 report of the Geologist, recommendation was made for grant of the permit, it is stated that request of the petitioner was finally rejected. Appeal was filed before the Government. That was also rejected by Ext.P3 order. Petitioner filed another appeal against Ext.P3 before the Government, which was also rejected by Ext.P4 order dated 05-06-2010. Petitioner sought for reconsideration of the matter by filing Exts.P5 and P6. There was no response and at this stage, this writ petition was filed.

(2.) Reason stated in Ext.P4 is contained in paragraph 5, which reads as under:-

(3.) A perusal of the above shows that it was only because of the environmental impact and for other relevant consideration that the mining permit sought for by the petitioner was rejected. There is nothing to show that the reasons contained in Ext.P4 are arbitrary or are vitiated for malafides. In such circumstances, this Court will not be justified in upsetting the said order.