VINOD STEPHEN, S/O. STEPHEN, INCHANANIYIL HOUSE, KAMBAMMEDU P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT Vs. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, IDUKKI DISTRICT OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, THODUPUZHA, PIN-685584,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext. P11 order passed by the District Collector, wherein No Objection Certificate sought for has been rejected for various reasons. According to the petitioner, he is an Agriculturist, more interested in fish farming. He has been conducting fish farming under the scheme "Malsya Keralam" initiated by the Government of Kerala. He is residing in Karunapuram Grama Panchayat in Idukki District. Ext. P2 is the copy of the possession certificate issued to the petitioner. A quarrying permit was sought for, which was granted as per Ext. P3 by the first respondent and thereafter 2000 metric tonnes of ordinary sand has been quarried from the period, 5.6.2008 to 20.8.2009. The application for renewal of permit has been given as per Ext. P4. The petitioner was given a reply as per Ext. P5, directing him to obtain No Objection Certificate from the District Collector in the light of the amended Rule 5 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 and he was also asked to submit the sketch of the land proposed to be used for quarrying the sand, possession certificate and also Bank guarantee for the amount to be spent for filling up the pits as well as No Objection Certificate from the District Collector. Thereafter, the application was submitted before the District Collector, which resulted in the final order passed as per Ext. P11. A reading of Ext. P11 shows that No Objection Certificate has been rejected for the main reason that the petitioner has not shown the particular spot whereunder the pond has to be dug and the depth of the same was not mentioned. He had also taken into the consideration the prohibition which has been imposed in the area with regard to the quarrying of the ordinary sand.

(2.) THE learned Government Pleader, on getting written instructions, submits that there has been an attempt by the sand mafia to extract sand from the land also resulting in grave ecological problems. It is also submitted that the petitioner did not appear for the hearing. The argument put forward by the petitioner is that a part of the land on which he propose to conduct quarrying, is full of sand making it unsuitable for doing any other farming. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has already produced a sketch and if required, the petitioner will produce additional materials including a proper sketch to show the survey number as well as the spot, viz. the specific area where he is proposing to dig the pond. It is prayed that a direction may be issued to reconsider the matter after hearing him.