Cheriyakunhiraman vs The District Collector

P.V. Asha, J.—The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order passed by the District Collector - Ext. P13, by which his request for a permit under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, for removing sand from his own property having an extent of 27 cents of agricultural land in Resurvey No. 348/3 of Noolpuzha Village in Sulthan Bathery Taluk, has been rejected, on the ground that once he violated the conditions of the permit by removing sand from poramboke land adjacent to his land and remitted fine and also saying that there is a possibility of removing sand illegally under the guise of permit.

The petitioner had submitted an application for permit initially in the year 2009 which was recommended by the Tahsildar as well as the Agricultural Officer. He had approached this Court earlier in two Writ Petitions when the permit was not granted despite recommendations. This Court had, by Ext. P10 judgment dated 3.11.2011 in Writ Petition No. 29221 of 2011, directed the consideration of his application within a period of six months. But on the very same day, his application was rejected as per Ext. P11, apparently without taking note of his contentions. Thereafter in Writ Petition No. 30822 of 2011, this Court by Ext. P12 judgment dated 15.11.2011 directed the District Collector, Wayanad to consider his application in the light of the recommendation Ext. P9, made by the Additional Tahsildar on 20.10.2011, in which it was stated that even though the petitioner had unauthorisedly removed sand, fine levied was remitted by him and his request for further permit can be favourably considered. Even though the petitioner had furnished a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 54,100/- as early as on 30.03.2010, as can be seen from Ext. P14, the permit has not been granted and his application was rejected by Ext. P13, which is impugned in this Writ Petition.

The reason for rejection is stated to be the likelihood of mining of sand illegally from adjacent properties including poramboke land.

In view of the fact that the rejection of the application for permit was as early as in 2011, and the petitioner continues to have the requirement for a permit in order to remove sand from his own property, which is almost filled with eroded mud and sand on account of land slip and also in view of the fact that the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner continues to remain with the respondents, it is only just and proper that the respondents consider the petitioner''s request for permit afresh immediately. It is seen that there is no disqualification incurred by the petitioner on account of remitting fine once towards the alleged illegal mining.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions.

(i) The petitioner shall submit a fresh application for permit within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in which event, the respondents shall consider the same in the light of the present circumstances and in accordance with law, and pass orders within a further period of two months of its receipt.

(ii) In case it is found that the petitioner is not eligible for permit, the respondents shall release the bank guarantee which has been already furnished as early as on 30.03.2010 immediately, at any rate, within a period of ten days from the date of passing orders on the application for permit to be submitted by the petitioner.