The petitioners are challenging two conditions imposed by the Geologist, while granting the quarrying permits to them for quarrying ordinary sand and brick clay from their properties. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioners, are the following:

2. The petitioners have been granted Ext.P1 series permits, to quarry ordinary sand/brick clay from various extents of land in Velloor Village in Vaikom Taluk. Those permits were issued with 18 conditions, subject to which the minor mineral can be mined. The petitioners are aggrieved by condition Nos.2 and 15 in those permits. They are extracted below for convenient reference.

"2. No quarrying shall be done within 75 metres of rail way line and 50 metres of public road, water course, residential building, boundary wall of place of worship, burial grounds or burning ghats, except under and in accordance with the previous permission of the State Government or the competent authority".

"15. No dewatering the mine pit using pump is permissible and mining has to be ceased once this becomes necessary and mining should be done manually".

3. The petitioners seek to quash the above said conditions. According to them, while issuing a permit under R.4 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, the Geologist is competent to impose only the conditions contained in R.8. Instead of that, certain conditions contained in R.29, concerning grant of quarrying lease, have been incorporated in Ext.P1 series quarrying permits. Therefore, it is submitted that the said conditions are clearly unauthorised by the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. 1967. The stipulation contained in condition No.2, regarding the distance of the quarrying pit from railway line etc., is unwarranted and irrational. The Geologist needs only to consider whether the lateral support of the neighbouring land is affected or not. The condition No. 15, restricting the use of pump for dewatering the pit, is also irrational and unsustainable. Except in Kottayam district, in all other parts of Kerala, dewatering, using pump, is permitted. So, the said stipulation violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners, guaranteed under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, it is submitted. It is further submitted that the above said conditions are imposed according to the whims and fancies of the Geologist. They are not authorised by any of the provisions of the Rules. Unless dewatering, using pumps is, allowed, manual quarrying of sand or clay many not be profitable, it is submitted. It is also contended that none of the Rules prohibits the use of mechanical devices for quarrying. On the above grounds, the petitioners pray for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash condition Nos.2 and 15 in Ext.P1 series permits. They also pray for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the 1st respondent Geologist to permit the use of pump for dewatering the quarrying pit. A direction is also sought against the 1st respondent to impose only the conditions contained in R.8 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, while granting a quarrying permit.

4. The 1st respondent has filed a statement. It is submitted that the said respondent held a personal inspection of the areas, in relation to which quarrying permits were applied. The allegation that conditions are attached to the permits, according to the whims and fancies of the said respondent, is denied. All the conditions attached to Ext.Pl series quarrying permits, except condition Nos.15 and 16 are uniformly applicable to the grant of permits in the whole of the State of Kerala. It is submitted, in the light of the geological parameters of the area, the competent authority is empowered to impose other conditions also. The difference between quarrying permit and quarrying lease is only regarding the period of quarrying and the quantity of minor mineral, to be quarried. For all other purposes, there is no difference between them. So, quarrying pe