Allowed

E.J.Varkeyachan v. the Dr. of Mining & Geology

Kerala HC7 Jul 2010OP/7208/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed a review order petitioning against a dead rent demand because it was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, as mandated by the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The court directed reconsideration on merits within two months.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 order is quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the Ext.P5 review petition on merits afresh within two months after affording an opportunity of being heard.

E.J.Varkeyachan Vs the Dr. of Mining & Geology — Kerala HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932

¶4

OP.No. 7208 of 2003(G)

¶5

------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

------------------------

¶8

E.J.VARKEYCHAN, EDASSERY HOUSE, PERIYAR CLUB ROAD, DESSOM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

---------------------------

¶12

1. THE DIRECTOR OF MINING & GEOLOGY DIRECTORATE OF MINING & GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14.

¶13

2. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, IDUKKI, MINI CIVIL STATION, THODUPUZHA.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.REMESH

¶15

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Kss

¶17

OP.NO.7208/2003 G

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

P1: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10/02/1994 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶21

P2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/06/1994 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶22

P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17/10/1994 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 2/05/2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

P5: COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DTD. 22/01/2003 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. NIL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH PARAWISE REMARKS.

¶26

P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 27/10/2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶33

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No. 7208 of 2003

¶34

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7^th day of July, 2010

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

By Ext.P1 the 1^st respondent granted a lease for quarrying granite dimension stone from certain properties in Marayoor Village in Devikulam Taluk in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was directed to get a lease deed executed as per specimen supplied, to get the document registered by the appropriate Sub Registrar's Office and to produce the same before the respondents. The petitioner submits that in the meanwhile in view of public protest in the area in question, the petitioner decided to drop the project he had envisaged and not to take advantage of the lease sanctioned. Therefore he did not execute the lease deed and according to him he had intimated the same to the respondents, in time and he was under the impression that, the matter was closed accepting the same. But to his surprise, he was served with Ext.P4

¶37

O.P. No. 7208 of 2003

¶38

-2-

¶39

dated 02.05.2002 directing him to pay Rs.1,80,657/towards the arrears of dead rent in respect of the lease granted to him. On receipt of the same, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 review petition under Rule 51 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. But without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, Ext.P6 communication was issued to the petitioner, which would suggest that the petitioner's review application has been rejected. Petitioner submits that, this is against the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Therefore the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶40

“i) call for the records leading to Ext.P4 and P6 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction;

¶41

ii) declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as dead rent as per the demand in Exts.P4 and P6”

¶42

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1^st

¶43

respondent justifying the action of the respondents.

¶44

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶45

At this juncture, I am not inclined to go into the question

¶46

O.P. No. 7208 of 2003

¶47

-3-

¶48

whether the demand by the respondents for the dead rent is correct or not. Rule 51 & 52 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules read thus:

¶49

“ 51. Review :- The competent authority or the appellate authority in case its orders have not been challenged in appeal under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-rule (l) of rule 49, as the case may be, or the final Appellate Authority may, on its own motion or an application by the interested party, review any order passed by it and pass such orders in reference thereto as it may deem it.

¶50

52. Opportunity for being heard .- No order under rules 50 and 51 shall be passed against any person interested, unless he has been given a resonable opportunity of being heard.”

¶51

The same provides that against the original order of the competent authority, a review petition would lie and such review petition has to be disposed of only after affording the person interested an opportunity of being heard. In this case, the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing Ext.P6 order. Ext.P6 order, therefore, is one passed in violation of the statutory provisions. Consequently, Ext.P6 order is quashed. The 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P5 review petition on merits afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as

¶52

O.P. No. 7208 of 2003

¶53

-4-

¶54

expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 order shall be kept in abeyance.

¶55

The original petition is disposed of as above.

¶56

S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE

¶57

shg/

E.J.Varkeyachan v. the Dr. of Mining & Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.J.Varkeyachan v. the Dr. of Mining & Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Suresh Kumar Vs Secretary, Trivandrum Corporation

Chennithala Thripperunthara S.Co.Bank Vs Ministry of Petroleum

David Mathew and Another Vs Asst.Executive Engineer and Others

Mary Smitha David Vs Laila M. & Another

M/S.M.S.Export Vs Central Bank of India

K.K. Hussain Vs Secretary, Kerala State Pollution