The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the fourth respondent not to renew the permits granted in favour of the sixth respondent for mining sand from the property belonging to the sixth respondent. It is, inter alia contended that large scale escavation has been conducted by the sixth respondent in violation of the permits issued in his favour. According to the petitioner, the sixth respondent had a permit for quarrying 1000 M.T. of sand from the property whereas he had quarried more sand in total violation of the permits issued. 2. Counter affidavit is filed by the fourth respondent inter alia stating that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner was granted permission to mine about 750 M.T.sand from the property and later the petitioner was granted permission to mine 1,000/- M.T. Out of the aforesaid quantity, the petitioner had removed 925 M.T. and what remains is only 75 M.T. During the pendency of the above writ petition, this Court, had called upon the Government to obtain a report from the Center for Earth Science Studies, Thiruvananthapuram and the report is filed along with memo dated 26.02.2014 It is inter alia stated in the report that after a scientific study of the matter and based on their observation, it was found that the total sand mined from the area in question was 1,904 M.T. It is also stated that the mining operation is seen conducted during the period 2012 onwards.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the sixth respondent stating that though they were possessed of orders for mining sand from the property, the same came to be objected by some members of the public as a result of which the petitioner had to seek police protection and by judgment in WP(C) No. 15956/2012 this Court had permitted mining operation after considering various contentions raised by the private respondents as well.
4. That apart, it is contended that they have not mined any sand more than the quantity prescribed and that as matters stand now, they had mined only 925 M.T., whereas they are entitled to mine 1000 M.T. It is also stated that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner had mined the area and they had permission to mine 750 M.T. of sand.
5. The petitioner inter alia contends that the mining operation in the area has caused huge environmental issues and that the sixth respondent under the guise of the permission granted by the fourth respondent has mined large extent of land other than what is actually permitted. Though the predecessor in interest of the petitioner had certain mining permission for about 750 M.T., they did not carryout any mining and the sixth respondent alone had conducted mining operation over and above what was actually permitted by the fourth respondent.
6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the sixth respondent however contends that that there is large scale illegal mining in the area and as far as the sixth respondent is concerned, they have only removed sand as permitted in terms with the permission granted by the Government as per Exts.P1 and P3.
7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Government authorities would contend that from the report of the fourth respondent it is evident that the sixth respondent had not conducted any illegal mining, whereas the predecessor in interest of the petitioner had conducted mining operation for about 750 M.T. and the petitioner had not completed the entire mining and removal of sand as permitted in terms of Exts. P1 and P3 and what remains is only 75 M.T. to be removed.
8. With reference to the report of CESS the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent contends that the assumption made by the CESS is based on the material available from the google map and it cannot be treated as a scientific method to arrive at the quantity.
9. Apparently there is material to indicate that mining can be permitted for at least a total quantity of 1,750 M.T., of which permission was granted to the predecessor of the petitioner for 750 M.T. and the petitioner for 1000 M.T.. As per the CESS report the total mined sand from the area will come to 1904 M.T, which is apparently more than what is permitted. But, there is strong objection from the side the sixth respondent with reference to the parameters followed by the expert authority and it is also indicated that there is large scale illegal mining in the area, which may add on to the total quantity specified by the CESS in this regard. Having regard to the present facts and situation, it is clear that the sixth respondent as well as his predecessor in interest were granted permission to mine at least to the extent of 1750 M.T. of sand. The difference is hardly 150 M.T. with reference to the CESS report. If the sixth respondent had mined, more quantity of sand as claimed by the petitioner definitely they cannot remove any further sand in terms of the present permit. But this Court cannot consider the CESS report as a material document to consider, whether the sixth respondent had excavated more sand and especially in view of the illegal sand mining going on in the locality as contended by the sixth respondent as well as the learned Special Government Pleader.
10. As matters stand now, there is no basis to issue directions as sought for by the petitioner. However, it is made clear that the issues now involved in the present writ petition is with reference to the extraction of 75 M.T. of sand. If the sixth respondent wants to proceed for further sand mining, they have to obtain a further permission from the Government in the light of the procedure prescribed. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of as under:
i) The sixth respondent shall be permitted to effect further sand mining in the area only on getting further permission from the Government based on the representation to be filed by them within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
ii) While considering such representation, the Government shall taken into account the report submitted by CESS in this regard and shall pass appropriate orders within a further period of one month thereafter.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE jm/