JUDGMENT : 1. The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows: On the directions of the Sub Collector, the Tahsildar has initiated proceedings to cancel the assignment of lands now under the possession of the petitioner. Assignment is sought to be cancelled on the ground that lands were used for a purpose for which it was not assigned. The Sub Collector has by Ext.P4 directed the Tahsildar to cancel the assignment of lands under the possession of the petitioner. The Tahsildar has himself by Ext.P6 stated that at the conclusion of proceedings, assignment will be cancelled. Thus the continuation of proceedings before the Tahsildar is meaningless. On the basis of the directions issued by the Sub Collector to the Geologist vide Ext.P4 and P13, the latter vide Ext.P18 has rejected the application for renewal of depot registration and dealers licence, solely on the ground that proceedings for cancellation of assignment is pending. It is in the light of these averments and contentions, the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers: “i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction quashing Ext.P5 and P6 and all further proceedings consequent thereto. ii. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction quashing Exhibit-P18. iii. Issue a Writ, Order or direction declaring that there is no prohibition in using lands assigned under the Land Assignment Act for setting up a crusher unit. iv. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction directing Respondent No.6 to grant registration for sales depot and issue dealers licence under Rules 9 & 12 of the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of illegal Mining, Storage and Transportations Rules, 2015) v. Issue such other Writ, Order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri.N.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. After hearing both sides, it is seen that the impugned proceedings for cancellation of the land assignment grant has not been finalized in the manner known to law, which crucial aspect is disclosed by Ext.P-6 letter dated 05.05.2020 issued by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar. 3. After hearing both sides, it is seen that the impugned proceedings for cancellation of the land assignment grant has not been finalized in the manner known to law, which crucial aspect is disclosed by Ext.P-6 letter dated 05.05.2020 issued by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar. Ext.P-6 letter dated 05.05.2020 issued by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar reads as follows: xxx xxx A reading of Ext.P-6 would make it clear that the proposed action for cancellation of the land assignment grant, may be taken up for consideration, only after the lifting of the lockdown, etc. The immediate grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to Ext.P-13 communication dated 29.03.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent-Sub Collector to the 6th respondent-District Geologist, the latter is taking steps for cancellation or non-renewal of the depot licence earlier granted to the petitioner for running his crusher unit in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. In consequence thereof, the 6th respondent-District Geologist has taken the stand in the impugned Ext.P-18 notice dated 20.05.2020 that he is not in a position to renew the both the dealer's licence and the depot licence for the running of the petitioner's crushing unit in the subject property. 4. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the view that the stand taken by the respondents, more particularly, the 6th respondent that even the existing dealer's licence and the depot licence of the petitioner will not be renewed, on account of the proposed proceedings for cancellation of the land assignment grant, is not reasonable and proper. Indisputably, the proposed proceedings for cancellation of the land assignment grant has not been finalized in the manner known to law. Accordingly, it is ordered that the 6th respondent-District Geologist shall ensure that the plea of the petitioner for renewal of the dealer's licence and depot licence may be considered and the same could be granted on a provisional basis, provided the petitioner fulfills all other norms and eligibility conditions for such renewal. In other words, the mere fact that the proposed land assignment cancellation proceedings is now pending against the petitioner shall not be a ground for even refusing the renewal of the depot licence and dealer's licence atleast on a provisional basis. 5. In other words, the mere fact that the proposed land assignment cancellation proceedings is now pending against the petitioner shall not be a ground for even refusing the renewal of the depot licence and dealer's licence atleast on a provisional basis. 5. Needless to say, the said the aspect regarding the grant of such provisional licence is to be determined with reference to the applicable norms in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules and such other guidelines. However, it is made clear that immediately after the land assignment cancellation proceedings are finalized in the manner known to law and if the land assignment grant is so cancelled etc., then it is certainly open to the 6th respondent-District Geologist to revoke such provisionally granted dealer's licence and depot licence to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, further it is ordered that all issues raised by the petitioner regarding the legality and correctness of the impugned land assignment cancellation proceedings, are left open to be raised separately in appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law. Sri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri.N.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is being advised to move a separate Writ Petition (Civil), so as to exclusively challenge the legality and correctness of the impugned land assignment cancellation proceedings. Needless to say, liberty is accorded to the petitioner to work out his remedies in the manner known to law. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment as well as the copy of this memorandum of this W.P(C) along with all the exhibits before the 6th respondent-District Geologist, for necessary information and further action. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.