HAMEED P Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are sand dealers who possess licence. It is stated that pursuant to the directions issued by the District Collector, they were issued Ext.P9 notice calling upon them to show cause why the dealership licence shall not be cancelled. It is stated that among the petitioners, three of them have filed replies by Exts.P10, P11 and P12. While the matter is thus pending consideration of the Geologist, the writ petition is filed challenging the notice.

(2.) HAVING regard to the pendency of the proceedings before the Geologist and as the Geologist is yet to take a decision in the matter, I think the writ petition is premature. Therefore, leaving it open to the 3rd respondent to decide the issue untramelled by the directions of the District Collector and considering the objections that are filed by the parties, this writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that the claim of the petitioners for value and return of the sand, if any, is left open and that claim will be considered by the 3rd respondent once orders are passed in the matter. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 3rd respondent for compliance.