A.K.SURENDRAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking for identical reliefs namely; to direct the Geologist to renew and extend licences granted to them. The petitioners also pray for a direction to release the sand stocked, which was purchsed during the currency of the liceces. Copy of the licence has been produced by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13593 of 2012 as Ext.P2, which was valid upto 31-3-2012. Ext.P4 is the application for renewal. In W.P.(C) No.13595 of 2012 Ext.P1 is copy of the licence, which was valid upto 31-3-2012 and Ext.P4 is the application for renewal.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C) No.13593 of 2012 mainly dealing with the reasons for not considering the application for renewal. It is evident from the counter affidavit that the 1st respondent cancelled all the No Objection Certificate issued for mining as per Ext.R3(a) order. Reference is made to a report published in Malayala Manorama daily dated 4-5- 2012 regarding the misuse of 'P' Forms issued on the strength of Dealers Licence for accompanying the consignments as per rule 48K of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. It is also stated that the matter was taken up by the Director of Mining and Geology and it was submitted before the Government for necessary instruction. It is clelar from paragraph 5 that the Director of Mining and Geology has informed the 3rd respondent to maintain status quo in the Taluk until further orders from the Government is received. Ext.R3(b) is the communication of the Director of Mining and Geology in this regard.

(3.) THE writ petitions are disposed of as above.