AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 159 wordsAnu Sivaraman, J
The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Ext.P7 proceedings issued by the Geologist have been stayed by the Government in appeal. This matter has also been duly intimated to the Geologist, Ernakulam, by Ext.P10 proceedings dated 05.03.2022. It is submitted that Ext.P11 proceedings had been issued by the Tahsildar, Aluva. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P12 before the Tahsildar pointing out the fact that Ext.P7 stands stayed and that the petitioner would, therefore, be entitled to carryout the quarrying operations.
Having considered the contentions advanced, I notice that Ext.P11 communication is dated 16.02.2022 and the communication with regard to the stay is on 05.03.2022. There will, accordingly, be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P12, in the light of Ext.P10 communication issued and to vacate Ext.P11 order, if the facts are borne out. Appropriate steps shall be taken by the Tahsildar within a week from today.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.