AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.M. Shaffique, J.—Petitioner challenges Ext. P9 communication issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Village Officer on 12.03.2014. The issue is with reference to the permission sought for by the petitioner by filing an application before the Geologist for removal of clay from his property belonging to a person from whom the petitioner has obtained necessary consent. Apparently, it is for the Geologist to consider the application after obtaining necessary reports from the competent authorities.
Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that when the Geologist had forwarded the application to the District Collector, the said authority had forwarded the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who in turn had requested the Village Officer to ascertain certain particulars in terms of Ext. P9.
Having regard to the said enquiry being conducted by the Village Officer, I do not think that this is a stage in which this Court should interfere. That apart, the petitioner has no right to challenge Ext. P9 as it is a communication during the process of enquiry undertaken by the revenue authorities as to whether they should issue ''No Objection Certificate'' to the Geologist or not.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that law does not warrant a consent from the neighbouring owners. Ext. P9 is not an order passed on that ground at all. Ext. P9 is only an enquiry process, which cannot be interdicted by the petitioner in the form of this writ petition.
In the said circumstances, there being no merit in the writ petition the same is dismissed.