SALEEM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was holding Ext.P2(b) quarrying permit valid till 09.01.2020. Ext.P2(b) quarrying permit was, however, suspended by the third respondent on 23.09.2019 as per Ext.P9 order, alleging that the quarrying operations have been conducted by the petitioner violating the approved mining plan and that it has been found by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau that the petitioner has quarried granite stones in excess of the permissible quantity. Aggrieved by Ext.P9, the petitioner preferred Ext.P13 representation before the second respondent. The stand taken by the petitioner in Ext.P13 representation is that the grounds mentioned in Ext.P9 for suspending the quarrying permit are incorrect and unsustainable. Ext.P16 is the decision taken by the second respondent on Ext.P13 representation. In Ext.P16, it is reiterated by the second respondent that the quarrying operations conducted by the petitioner was violating the approved mining plan. It was, however, stated by the second respondent in Ext.P16 that once appropriate directions are received from the office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, the quarrying permit will be restored. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P16. The specific case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that both the grounds stated in Ext.P9 order to suspend the quarrying permit issued to the petitioner are unsustainable, and the sustainability or otherwise of the grounds taken in Ext.P9 order has not been considered by the second respondent while taking Ext.P16 decision.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) As rightly pointed out by the petitioner, the contention raised by petitioner in Ext.P13 representation that the grounds on which the quarrying permit issued to him was suspended are unsustainable, has not been considered by the second respondent while issuing Ext.P16 communication. As such, even if this court set aside Ext.P16 communication on that ground, it will not serve any purpose now, for the term of Ext.P2(b) quarrying permit has already expired. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to prefer an application before the competent authority for renewal of Ext.P2(b) quarrying permit, and if such an application is preferred by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the competent authority after examining the correctness of the grounds mentioned in Ext.P9 order, if necessary, by calling for the relevant files of the seventh respondent. In the peculiar facts of this case, it is also directed that if the petitioner prefers an application for renewal of the quarrying permit within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, final decision on the same shall be taken by the competent authority within three weeks thereafter. Ordered accordingly.