Rafeek E.K vs State Of Kerala

C.S.Dias, J

The petitioner, inter alia, seeks a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext P6 reply submitted by him in response to Ext P5 stop memo within

a reasonable time period.

The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that he proposes to construct a residential building in the property comprised in Survey No.126/2017 in

Re-Survey Block No.34 of Pattimattom Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk, Ernakulam District. He has obtained Ext P1 building permit and Ext P2

development permit. The petitioner has also obtained transit permits from the second respondent to remove minor minerals including ordinary earth.

However, while the petitioner was removing ordinary earth from the property, the first respondent issued Ext P5 stop memo alleging that the petitioner

was attempting to extract granite stones without a permit. The petitioner has immediately submitted Ext P6 reply to the first respondent. The petitioner

seeks for a direction to the first respondent to finalise the proceedings pursuant to Ext P5 stop memo by adverting to Ext P6 reply. Hence, the writ

petition.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

Having considered the fact that the first respondent has issued Ext P5 stop memo and that the petitioner has submitted Ext P6 reply, it is only just

and expedient to direct the first respondent to finalise the proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext P5 stop memo, after adverting to Ext P6 explanation put

forth by the petitioner .

In the result, without expressing anything on the merits of the matter, I direct the first respondent to finalise the proceedings initiated on the basis of

Ext P5 stop memoafter adverting to Ext P6 explanation submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any

rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.