K. Vinod Chandran, J.

The petitioner is concerned with the large scale removal of ordinary earth from her adjacent properties belonging to the respondents 7 to 14. The petitioner contends that such removal has been effected by reason of exemption available; both in the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1967 (for short Rules of 1967) and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2015 (for short KMMC Rules); the latter of which superseded the former. The exemption, for excavation of ordinary earth on the strength of building permits issued by the Local Self Government Institutions (LSGI's) is said to be creating regular instances of wide spread mining all over the State without any quarrying permit, thus resulting in deleterious consequences to the environment. The petitioner in the instant case, is pointedly concerned about the mining conducted by respondents 7 to 14, in her adjacent property; resulting in the loss of lateral support to her property.

2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 6.10 Ares of property comprised in Sy. No. 126/13 of Poruvazhi Village in Kunnathur Taluk wherein the petitioner and her family are residing in a residential building. The 7th respondent owned 1 Acre and 23½ cents of property to the western side of the petitioner's property. A building permit was obtained by the 7th respondent for construction of a commercial building based on which large scale quarrying of ordinary earth was carried on in the property. But for excavation of earth no construction was effected thus rendering illegal the mining carried on; based on an exemption, the condition of which was not satisfied; is the argument.

3. The permission granted by the RDO to remove ordinary earth from the said property having an extent of more than 1 acre, upto 3 to 4 meters height from the road level was canceled as per Ext. P2, on the complaint made by the petitioner. The 7th respondent then approached this Court with a writ petition against the obstruction caused to the excavation and removal of sand from his property wherein the District Collector had filed a counter affidavit as is evidenced by Ext. P3. The District Collector had opposed the said activity and this Court refused to entertain the challenge and directed the District Collector to hear the parties and take decision in accordance with law as per Ext.P4. The District Collector had passed Ext.P5 refusing consent to extract sand from the subject land.

4. The 7th respondent then transferred the property in the names of others; more particularly respondents 8 to 13 who are related to the 7th respondent. These persons had obtained Exts.P6, P7 and P8 building permits from the LSGI, after the KMMC Rules came into force. Again when large scale excavation of earth was carried out, respondents 7 to 14 relied on the exemption available under Rule 14 of KMMC Rules. The various party respondents were also granted transit permits as indicated in Exts.P10 to P12 in the year 2016 which are also challenged in the above writ petition. The petitioner points to Exts. P9 and P9(a) reports of Additional Tahasildar, Kollam to contend that there is gross misuse of the exemption under Rule 14 of the KMMC Rules as also the earlier Rules of 1967 in which amendments on similar lines had been made by G.O(P)193/2014/ID dated 30.06.2014.

5. The 8th respondent has filed a counter affidavit for and on behalf of himself and the respondent 9 to 12, who are his wife and children. It is contended that the 7th respondent who is the father-in-law of the 8th respondent had constructed a shopping complex as per the building permit granted to him. It is also contended that the excavation carried on was to level the property and bring it to the level of the road passing through the boundary of the property. The 8th respondent also relies on the exemption granted under the earlier Rules of 1967 as also the KMMC Rules to assert that no mining/quarrying permit as such is required and that he had excavated t