JUDGMENT : P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. 1. The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “(i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P8 and P9. (ii) To issue a writ of certiorari setting aside Ext.P8 and P9. (iii) To declare that the petitioner's request for digging a pond for the purpose of agriculture and fish farming comes within the purview of Rule 104 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. (iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the petitioner's application for granting of NOC under Rule 104 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, in accordance with law. (v) To issue such other appropriate writ order or direction that may be deemed to be just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.” [SIC] 2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 8 Acres of land in Re-survey No. 225 in Block No. 72 in Poonjar Thekkekara Village. According to the petitioner, he is cultivating various agricultural crops in the property. It is the case of the petitioner that due to acute scarcity of water, especially during the summertime, the petitioner is not able to do his agricultural operations on his land. Under such circumstances, the petitioner decided to dig a pond in his property to enable the petitioner to collect and store water in the pond. Since the area is comprised of granite, the petitioner can dig the pond only after removing a portion of the granite. For the same, the petitioner applied to the authority concerned for getting NOC as contemplated under Rule 104 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (for short Rules, 2015). It is the case of the petitioner that without considering the purpose and intent of the said rule, the respondents rejected the petitioner's application seeking NOC under Rule 104 of the Rules, 2015 in an arbitrary and mechanical manner. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions. The counsel takes me through Rule 104 of the Rules, 2015 and submit that if the extraction of minor mineral is inevitable for any legitimate purpose, other than winning the mineral, and where the owner of the land desires to transport minerals outside the area of extraction, the Revenue Divisional Officer is bound to issue permit. The Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner has 8 acres of land, and the petitioner is insisting on digging a pond in the area where there is granite. The Government Pleader submitted that the statutory authority to decide this issue is the Government, and the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) only can issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC). 5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Government Pleader. The point to be decided is about the validity of Ext P8 and P9 and whether the authorities concerned considered the relevant rules while passing those orders. The NOC is to be issued by RDO as per Rule 104 of the Rules, 2015. It will be better to extract Rule 104 of the Rules, 2015: “104. Power of State Government to grant special permission to extract and remove minor minerals in special circumstances.- In any case or class of cases where extraction of minor mineral is inevitable for any legitimate purpose, other than winning the mineral, and where the owner of the land desires to transport minerals outside the area of extraction, the applicant shall submit an application along with the No Objection Certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the State Government for its extraction and transportation and in such cases if the State Government is of the opinion that the extraction and transportation of minerals is inevitable, the State Government may for reasons to be recorded in writing, issue an order in writing granting permission for extraction and transportation of such minerals with such terms and conditions as they deems fit. The applicant shall remit royalty as specified in Schedule 1 for the quantity of the mineral extracted. The applicant shall remit royalty as specified in Schedule 1 for the quantity of the mineral extracted. Provided that, in such cases, the application shall be submitted through the Director of Mining and Geology and along with the application for extraction and transportation of minerals, the applicant shall produce documents as required by the competent authority for substantiating the details furnished in the application.” 6. A reading of the Rule 104, makes it clear that in case or class of cases, where extraction of minor mineral is inevitable for any legitimate purpose, other than winning the minerals, and where the owner of the land desires to transport mineral outside the area of extraction, the applicant can submit an application, along with the no objection certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the State Government for its extraction and transportation. In such cases, if the State Government is of the opinion that extraction and transportation of minerals is inevitable, the State Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, issue an order in writing granting permission for extraction and transportation of such minerals with such terms and conditions as they deem fit. Therefore, it is clear that the Government is the competent authority, and the application is to be submitted along with a NOC from the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is also clear from Rule 104 of the Rules, 2015 that the NOC can be granted by RDO only if it is for a legitimate purpose and it is inevitable. It is true that the state Government is the authority to grant the permit. But a reading of Rule 104 of the Rules 2015, it is clear that, while considering the application for NOC, the RDO also has to decide whether the extraction of minor minerals is inevitable for any legitimate purpose. Therefore for issuing NOC for extraction of minor minerals, the RDO also has to consider whether the same is inevitable for any legitimate purpose. The RDO must first consider whether it is for a legitimate purpose and thereafter consider whether the legitimate purpose is inevitable. If a NOC is issued by the RDO, the Government again has to decide whether the extraction and transportation of Minor minerals is inevitable. The RDO must first consider whether it is for a legitimate purpose and thereafter consider whether the legitimate purpose is inevitable. If a NOC is issued by the RDO, the Government again has to decide whether the extraction and transportation of Minor minerals is inevitable. Therefore, before issuing the NOC the RDO has to consider two aspects, namely: (1) Is it for a legitimate purpose (2) whether it is inevitable for that legitimate purpose. Once NOC is issued, the government has to satisfy that the extraction and transportation of minor minerals is inevitable. The Government has to pass a speaking order to that effect as per the Rule 2015. 7. This Court considered Exts.P8 and P9 orders. Ext.P8 is the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala and Ext.P9 is the order passed by the District Collector, Kottayam. A perusal of these orders will show that the Revenue Divisional Officer or the District Collector has not considered the petitioner's legitimate purpose. According to the petitioner, he wants to dig a pond for agricultural purposes. Of course, that can be a legitimate purpose if it is genuine. But that issue is not considered by the Revenue Divisional Officer while passing Ext.P8 order and the District Collector also has not considered this point while issuing Ext.P9 order. If that is the case, the matter has to be reconsidered by the Revenue Divisional Officer, in the light of the specific provision in Rule 104 of the Rules, 2015. For facilitating the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass fresh orders, Exts.P8 and P9 can be set aside. 8. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed: (1) Exts.P8 and P9 are set aside. (2) The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner for NOC in the light of the observations made in this judgment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.