P. D. Devachan and E. J. Jojo v. District Collector, Ernakulam; Geologist Mining and Geology District Office, Ernakulam; Smt. Vidya KuriaKose, GP

WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 P.D.DEVACHAN AGED 52 YEARS AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.DEVASSY, PADAYATTIL HOUSE, EAST CHERANALLUR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2 E.J.JOJO ENJIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANNA TRADERS, KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM COLLECOTRATE, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 030. 2 THE GEOLOGIST MINING AND GEOLOGY DISTRICT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 030. SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012 2 **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.11937 of 2012** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of August, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** ## The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : “1. Call for the records relating to Exhibit P3 and issue a writ of certiorari and quash the same; II. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to renew Exhibits P1 and P2 dealers licenses of the petitioners for the financial year 2012-2013 and permit the petitioners to stock and sell sand in accordance with law and also to issue cash memoranda in Form 'P' to sell out sand from the stock yard of the petitioners ; III. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent not to go by the dictations of the first respondent covered vide Exhibit P3 order while considering the renewal application of Exhibits P1 and P2 dealers licenses submitted by the petitioners; and IV. Issue such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deems fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012 3 of this case.” [SIC] ## 2. When this writ petition came up for consideration along with some other cases, common order was passed, which is extracted hereunder : **“** In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for identical reliefs and interim orders have also been sought. 2. The facts of the case show that the petitioners have been granted dealers licence by the Geologist of the concerned district in terms of Rule 48-C of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Copies of the licences have been produced herein also. The writ petitions mainly relate to Pathanamthitta and Ernakulam Districts and the impugned orders have been passed by the District Collectors concerned. In W.P.(C) No.11937/2012 the order passed by the District Collector, Ernakulam has been produced as Ext.P3 and in W.P.(C) No.9026/2012 the order passed by the District Collector, Pathanamthitta has been produced as Ext.P3. I shall refer to the Exhibits as produced in these writ petitions. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleaders for the respondents. 4. In respect of Ernakualm District the District Collector has cancelled all the dealership licences for stocking and selling of ordinary sand in Angamaly and Perumbavoor Municipalities and in Panchayat area (where sand ghats are operating by Panchayats and in beneficiary Panchayats sharing sand from the above Panchayats) issued by the Geologist. In Pathanamthitta District WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012 4 also, the District Collector has directed that without the permission of the District Level Expert Committee, permits shall not be granted to stockists of ordinary sand and the functioning of 86 centres will have to be stopped from 1.4.2012. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the Geologist alone is the competent authority to grant or refuse licence and therefore the licences cannot be recalled by the District Collector. It is pointed out that the petitioners have been carrying out the stocking and sale of minor mineral, viz. ordinary sand collected from various sources and due compliance of the conditions of the permit have been satisfied in all the cases and no objections have been taken against them in the matter. It is submitted that the orders have been passed without jurisdiction by the District Collector. It is also pointed out that in similar cases in the judgments in W.P.(C) Nos.24644/2006 and 25431/2009,produced in W.P.(C) No. 9026/2012, this Court held that the District Collector is not having any power in such matters. It is pointed out that there are no allegations individually against the petitioners or against the conduct of business by them in ordinary sand and no orders have been passed by the Geologist recalling the licence on any ground whatsoever. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the scheme under the rules and contended that nowhere under the relevant rules, the District Collector is provided with any authority in respect of a licence sued under Rule 48-C of the rules. It is therefore pointed out that the orders cannot survive. It is pointed out further that even in cases where permits have expired, the Geologist is not accepting the application for WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012 5 renewal in the light of the order passed by the District Collector concerned. 6. Learned Government Pleaders who supported the orders, submitted that the District Collectors are authorities under Rule 5 of the said Rules as well as they have got ample power under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. In many cases it has been noticed by them that under the cover of the licences issued to the dealers like the petitioners, illegally mined river sand are being transported and sold from these stockyards and the 'P' Forms issued by the Geologist for sale and transport of ordinary sand are being misused. It is submitted that the petitioners are not having any licence to stock and sell river sand. The claim raised by the petitioners that they are importing river sand from other States is also opposed by the learned Government Pleaders by saying that in many of the States, now such permits are not being issued. Mainly, it is submitted that under the cover of the licence the petitioners are dealing in river sand and therefore the District Collector being the authority under the Act of 2001, is perfectly justified in passing the orders. It is also pointed out that the environmental aspects and the degradation of nature are matters of public importance and it is only to protect the rivers and the ecology around it that the sand mining has been prohibited, but illegal sand mining has resulted in total depletion of the river banks and other ecological systems and the unregulated issuance of licences to stockyards, that too in close proximity to rivers, even if it is for the sale of ordinary sand, is paving way for allegations of sale of illegally mined river sand. Therefore, it is submitted that the District Collectors have passed WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012 6 the orders keeping in mind the environmental aspects, public good and other important factors which are of much concern to the general public as well as the State. 7. First I will examine the Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Licences have been issued for the dealers in question under Rule 48-C. Going by Rule 48-C(1) a dealers licence will have to be issued by the competent authority in Form “L” and sub-rule (2) shows that every licence shall be subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified therein and to the provisions of the Act and Rules. The definition of competent authority under Rule 3(iv) is the following: "(iv) "Competent authority" means the authority or officer appointed by the State Government by notification in the Gazette to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the competent authority under these rules.” The authority notified to exercise the power under Rule 48-C is the Director of Mining and Geology and the power has been delegated in terms of the specified norms under Rule 62, to Geologists as per notification dated 17.11.1997. The conditions of licence are incorporated in the form itself and Form P is the cash memorandum which is issued under Rule 48-K. The District Collector is an authority under Rule 5 and it concerns grant of quarrying permit wherein the District Collector is given the power to issue No Objection Certificate. On a reading of the relevant provisions of the above Rules, it can be seen that the concerned authority to issue the dealers licence for ordinary sand, is the Geologist. The matters to be considered by the Geologist for issuing the licence are specified in Rule 48-D as items 1 to 6. Rule 48F is WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012 7 concerned with maintenance of records and production of the same for inspection, Rule 48-G concerns with furnishing of statement of accounts by a dealer and Rule 48-I deals with with cancellation of licence which empowers the competent authority to pass an order in writing if there is failure to comply with any of the conditions of licence or any of the provisions of the Act, Rule or orders in this regard. 8. Before going to the other aspects, it may be relevant to refer to the reasons stated in the orders passed by the District Collectors concerned. In Ext.P3 produced in W.P. (C).No.11937/2012, the order passed by the District Collector, Ernakulam, therein, the following decisions have been stated to cancel the dealership licences: “a. This Court by certain Judgments has already prohibited the private trading of river sand in Ernakulam District and directed to introduce public 'kalavara' system for distributing river sand to the beneficiaries for avoiding illicit river sand mining and transporting of the same; b. Accordingly, the kalavaras have been provided for distributing river sand to beneficiaries; c. But, sand mining is done illegally in rivers and they are safely unloaded in private sand depots permitted in Panchayat area and Municipal area of Angamaly and Perumbavoor for stocking and selling of ordinary sand under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules; d. The dealership licences issued by the Geologist to private individuals are only for stocking and selling of ordinary sand other than river sand; e. Misuse of such licences have been reported; WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012 8 f. 'P' forms issued for selling exclusively the ordinary sand are used for transporting river sand; g. The stockyards have easy access to river banks, paving way for illegal sand mining, and stocking and sale of river sand using the 'P' Forms for ordinary sand. h. Section 13 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 empowers the District Collector to close kadavus for sufficient reasons and the Circular dated 06/10/2006 of the Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram permits inspection of sites where licences have been issued by the Department of Mining and Geology and recommend action against violators. 9. The District Collector, Pathanamthitta District in the order Ext.P3 produced in W.P.(C).No.9026/2012, has stated the following main reasons: a. In the meeting of Revenue and Police Officers held on 12/10/2011 under the Chairmanship of the District Collector, direction was issued to furnish a report in the light of the allegation that licences have been issued for providing stockyards, indiscriminately by the Geology Department throughout the district; b. Report of the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau dated 30/10/2011 which shows various violations by the dealers including that they are paving way for illegal collection of sand from the rivers, namely, Pamba, Achankovil and Manimala where there is prohibition of sand mining and the 'P' forms are being used indiscriminately for illegal stocking and sale of sand; c. Only minimum quantity of ordinary sand is brought to the stockyards numbering 86 but they are selling illegally mined river WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012 9 sand and a complaint in that regard has been filed by the combined Trade Unions on 02/11/2011; d. Many of the dealership licences have been issued to places within the banks and vicinity of rivers, for example:- just below the Muringamangalam bridge in Konni; e. Even though, there are restrictions from other states to bring river sand, under the guise of import of sand from other States permissions have been sought but, mainly, illegal river sand mining have been reported under the cover of the licences of the stockyards; f. On an examination of the different stockyards it is seen that 'P' forms have been issued without any real basis in advance and the sand collected during night from the river systems have been transported under the cover of the 'P' forms; g. Even though, the Geologist was directed to put some control on the stockyards, nothing has been done so far; h. There is no provision under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 making any provision for stocking sand and to conduct sale; i. In the light of the unscientific way in which the permits have been issued, there is real damage to the ecosystem and climatic conditions; j. There is no ascertainment of the conditions under Rule 48D of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 before granting dealer's licence, especially, with regard to the availability of minor mineral in the locality wherein the stockyards are located; k. No permission has been granted for sand mining from many of the rivers in the light of the Judgment in W.P.(C). No.37940/2010 but as licence have been issued for stockyard without any control very near to the rivers, it has paved way for illegal sand mining and trade; l. It is also mentioned in the operative portion that without the WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012 10 permission of the District Level Expert Committee provided under the Act 2001, further licences shall not be issued to the stockyards. 10. Both sides have argued in detail about the powers of the District Collector under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The Central Act, namely, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act allows the State to frame rules and in accordance with the said power, the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules have been framed. Under the Central Act also, going by the definition under Section 3(e) "ordinary sand" will be a “minor mineral". Section 4(1A) prohibits transportation, storing any minor minerals otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Central Act and the rules made thereunder. The Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, as already noticed gives District Collector authority under Rule 5(5) for issuance of a no-objection certificate while granting quarrying permit in respect of minor minerals. 11. It is relevant to examine the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 in this context. Therein, various provisions have been made empowering different authorities for exercise of powers. One of the important provisions is Section 3 which provides for the constitution of District Expert Committee of which the District Collector will be the Chairman and the Geologist/District Officer of the Department of Mining and Geology is an Ex-officio member. Section 9 provides for powers and functions of the District Expert Committee. Sub Section (b) of Section 9 provides for fixing the total quantity of sand that can WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012 11 be removed from a kadavu or river bank; Sub Section (c) confers power to control the transportation of sand from a kadavu or river bank to another area; Sub Section (d) gives power to close a kadavu or river bank opened for sand removal. As far as removal of sand from a kadavu is concerned, Section 12 provides some general conditions. 12. Learned Government Pleader submitted that Section 13 provides for power of Government or District Collector to order closure of kadavu or river bank. It is evident from Sub Section (2) of Section 13 that the District Collector can notify the ban on sand removal from any river or river bank during any period particularly during monsoon season in a year based on a report from the District Expert Committee or otherwise. The main emphasis is to avoid disturbance to the bio-physical environment system of the river. Under the Rules framed as per the Act 2001, namely, the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2001 also it can be seen that the District Expert Committee's powers and functions are provided under Rule 8. Rule 8(e) gives power to ensure the protection of river banks and keep them free from encroachments and Sub Rule (h) gives power to carryout the ban order on sand mining issued by the Government or District Collector. 13. Under Rule (9), various powers have been conferred on the District Collector, as the Chairman of the District Expert Committee. He has got the powers to implement the decisions of the District Expert Committee going by Sub Rule (a). Under Sub Rule (k), he has got the power to implement the plans approved by the District Expert Committee with the sanction of the Government. Under Sub WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012 12 Rule (1) he has got the power to ban the sand mining from kadavu or river in any period of a year. Sub Rule (u) confers power to constitute a squad consisting of Police and other Officials with Tahsildar as the head, to prevent unauthorised sand removal. Therefore, it can be seen that as Chairman of the District Expert Committee, the District Collector is having various powers to enforce the provisions of the Act 2001. 14. The petitioners brought to my attention the judgment in W.P. (C) No.24644/2006, wherein the petitioner is a dealer in sand who was having licence under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Therein also, the challenge was against the direction issued by the District Collector not to issue or renew licences to deal in ordinary sand, on the apprehension that the petitioner is likely to misuse the P Forms. This Court held that the District Collector has no power to issue such directions. 15. The power for cancellation of licence issued under Rule 48D is conferred on the competent authority under Rule 48-I. Such power could be exercised by an order in writing, by rescinding the licence. Herein, learned Government Pleader submitted that the principles stated by the Apex Court in **M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others** (AIR 2004 SC 4016), in paragraph 48 are relevant. It is submitted that the State and its officers are bound to act to protect the environment and licensing power should conform to such considerations. In para 48 of the said judgment, the Apex Court has laid down the principle thus: "48. The development and the protection of environments are not enemies. If without degrading the environment or minimising WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012 13 adverse effects thereupon by applying stringent safeguards, it is possible to carry on development activity applying the principles of sustainable development, in that eventuality, the development has to go on because one cannot lose sight of the need for development of industries, irrigation resources and power projects etc. including the need to improve employment opportunities and the generation of revenue. A balance has to be struck. We may note that to stall fast the depletion of forest, series of orders have been passed by this Court in T.N. Godavarman's case (AIR 1997 SC 1228) regulating the felling of trees in all the forests in the country. Principle 15 of Rio Conference of 1992 relating to the applicability of precautionary principle which stipulates that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for proposing effective measures to prevent environmental degradation is also required to be kept in view. In such matters, many a times, the option to be adopted is not very easy or in a strait-jacket. If an activity is allowed to go ahead, there may be irreparable damage to the environment and if it is stopped, there may be irreparable damage to economic interest. **In case of doubt, however,protection of environment would have precedence over the economic interest. Precautionary principle requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm. The harm can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion. It is not always necessary that there should be direct evidence of harm to the environment.** " 16. Learned Government Pleader emphasised the finding therein that preventive action can be taken even under reasonable doubt, is quite significant in the present context. It is submitted therefore that WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012 14 the whole directions issued by the District Collectors in these districts, are only for public good and to prevent the illegal sand mining, which has its own adverse impact on the environment as well as ecology. 17. In this context, Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India are quite important. They are extracted below: **"48A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life** .- The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. **51A. Fundamental duties.** -- It shall be the duty of every citizen of India-- (a) to (f) omitted (g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures." In fact, in various judgments of the Apex Court and this Court the necessity to protect the environment, especially in the light of the above articles and Article 21, has been emphasised and those principles are well settled. (See Soman v. Geologist **-** 2004 (3) KLT 577) 18. In a recent order of the Apex Court in S.L.P.(C) Nos.729731/2011 and connected cases, with regard to the protection of environment, the following aspects have been laid down in paragraphs 7 and 15, while considering the adverse impact of quarrying sand and other minor minerals in various States: WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012 15 "Sand mining on either side of the rivers, upstream and in-stream, is one of the causes for environmental degradation and also a threat to the biodiversity. Over the years, India's rivers and Riparian ecology have been badly affected by the alarming rate of unrestricted sand mining which damage the ecosystem of rivers and the safety of bridges, weakening of river beds, destruction of natural habitats of organisms living on the river beds, affects fish breeding and migration, spells disaster for the conservation of many bird species, increases saline water in the rivers, etc. Extraction of alluvial material from within or near a streambed has a direct impact on the stream's physical habitat characteristics. These characteristics include bed elevation, substrate composition and stability, in-stream roughness elements, depth, velocity, turbidity, sediment transport, stream discharge and temperature. Altering these habitat characteristics can have deleterious impact on both in-stream biota and the associated riparian habitat. The demand for sand continues to increase day by day as building and construction of new infrastructures and expansion of existing ones is continuous thereby placing immense pressure on the supply of the sand resource and hence mining activities are going on legally and illegally without any restrictions. Lack of proper planning and sand management cause disturbance of marine ecosystem and also upset the ability of natural marine processes to replenish the sand..................... Quarrying of river sand, it is true, is an important economic activity in the country with river sand forming a crucial raw material for the infrastructural development and for the construction industry but excessive instream sand and gravel mining causes the degradation of rivers. Instream mining lowers the stream bottom of rivers which may lead to bank erosion. Depletion of sand in the streambed and along coastal WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012 16 areas causes the deepening of rivers which may result in destruction of aquatic and riparian habitats as well. Extraction of alluvial material as already mentioned from within or near a streambed has a direct impact on the stream's physical habitat characteristics." These findings are quite important while considering the questions raised herein . 19. It is true that the power to cancel the licence is conferred on the issuing authority, viz. the Geologist. But herein, the orders have been passed by the District Collector cancelling the licences. 20. We are thus confronted with the operation of an enactment which was brought into effect for protecting the river banks and regulation of removal of sand. The Geologist also figures with respect to exercise of certain powers under the said Act also. I have already mentioned about the constitution and composition of District Expert Committee wherein the District Collector is the Chairman and Geologist is a Member. Going by Section 12 of the Act, viz. subsection (1), the Grama Panchayat or the Municipality concerned shall, before carrying out the sand removal operation obtain passes from the Geology Department which shall issue them on the recommendation of the District Expert Committee on certain terms. Therefore, the Geologist concerned is not totally alien to the provisions of the said Act. Being a member of the District Expert Committee, he will be bound to implement its decisions. It is in that context, we will have to examine the orders passed by the District Collector which are under challenge in these writ petitions. 21. Of course, the orders have resulted in a direction to cancel the licence. The power to cancel the licence is conferred on the WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012 17 Geologist under Rule 48-I of the rules. Whether, for the issuance of the licence, the conditions provided under Rule 48D are satisfied, is a matter to be considered while passing orders on the application, by the Geologist. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders passed by the District Collector, which are produced in these writ petitions, will stand suspended as far as it is against the petitioners herein. But the whole issue will have to be considered by the Geologist in the light of the various aspects pointed out above and the relevant aspects discussed in the orders passed by the respective District Collectors which cannot at all be ignored. The Geologist is also one of the functionaries under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, as already noticed. Therefore, the alleged violation of the provisions of the said Act by utilising the licences issued under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, is a matter for serious concern and consideration at the hands of the Geologist also. 22. In all these cases, the licence is one issued by the Geologist for stocking and sale of ordinary sand. Even though the petitioners contend that they are able to obtain ordinary sand from various States and other means, such details are not specifically pleaded in the writ petitions. Learned Government Pleader submitted that import from other States has not been permitted by any of the States also. Therefore, the availability of ordinary sand is strictly a matter to be considered in the light of Rule 48D(iv) of the Rules, even at the time of issuance of dealers licence or while renewing the same and for issuing 'P' forms. Another factor is one under Rule 48D(ii) regarding the number of licenced dealers selling the minor mineral in the area. This factor is more relevant in the light of the WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012 18 findings rendered by the District Collector in the respective orders that licences have been issued indiscriminately without ascertaining the availability of ordinary sand. For mining ordinary sand (karamanal) there are other stipulations. 23. The further question is whether the dealers are entitled to deal with river sand also, as the licences have been issued only for "ordinary sand". The collection, removal and sale of river sand is specifically controlled by the provisions of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 alone. Therefore, the said aspect also requires due consideration. In that view of the matter, the following directions are issued: i) There will be a direction to the Geologist to pass orders with regard to the request for renewal or for issuance of 'P' Forms. Before considering the matter, he will have to get the views of the Revenue Department headed by the District Collector as well as of the Police department with regard to the specific objections, if any, in respect of the application submitted by each of the petitioners for renewal or for issuance of licence or for issuance of P Forms. ii) Various reports mentioned in the order passed by the District Collector concerned, will also be communicated to the Geologist and those will be duly and properly considered while taking a decision as directed above. iii) The parties will be heard in person in the presence of the officers of the Revenue Department and the Police department, who also will be allowed to raise their view points/objections in the matter, in the presence of the petitioners themselves. Thereafter, a WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012 19 considered order will be passed by the Geologist expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iv) The question whether there should be control in the matter of issuance/renewal of licence and whether the licence issued, allows the petitioners concerned to have business in ordinary sand alone, will be decided specifically in the light of the stand taken by the respondents that such dealers cannot stock or sell river sand using the licences issued under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules.” In the light of the same, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that nothing survives in this case. Recording the order dated 18.6.2012, this writ petition is closed. SD/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012 20 ## **APPENDIX** EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEALERS LICENSE ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 1.10.2011 VALID UPTO 31.3.2012 FOR STOCKING AND SELLING SAND. EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEALERS LICENSE ISSUED TO THE SECOND PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 1.10.2011 VALID UPTO 31.03.2012 FRO STOCKING AND SELLING SAND EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 9.1.2012 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 9.1.2012 EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 6.2.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.11.2011 IN WPC NO 31153/2011 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 30.03.2012 IN WPC NO 7327/2012 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXT.P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED WP(C) NO. 11937 OF 2012 21 8.5.2012 IN WPC NO 9368/2012 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL