VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. All the above cases deal with the mining activities of a Company, called "English India Clays Limited". The different cases are dealt with in chronological order herein below.

2. W.A.No.1099 of 2010 is filed by English India Clays Limited, hereinafter referred to as "the Company", challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.29634 of 2009 refusing to interfere with Exhibit P9 order passed by the District Collector under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 [for brevity "Paddy Land Act"]. The order directed the Company to stop the construction activities carried on in the property in violation of the Paddy Land Act and Rules. The learned Single Judge refused to consider the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution for reason of an effective alternate remedy and relegated the Company to that statutory remedy of revision under Section 28 of the Paddy Land Act.

3. W.P(C) No.8843 of 2013 is a writ petition filed by the Company seeking police protection for mining and transportation of china clay from the areas covered by Exhibit P1 order of the Government and Exhibit P2 lease. There was an interim order grante