Dismissed

Ali Muhammed v. the District Geologist

Kerala HC6 Jun 2014WP(C)/12601/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

givent disputed questions of facts regarding a mining permit and imposition of royalty, this court dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority under Rule 49 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Recovery proceedings were kept in abeyance pending the appeal decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file appeal within 15 days; recovery proceedings kept in abeyance.

Ali Muhammed Vs the District Geologist — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/16TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 12601 of 2014 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ALI MUHAMMED, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 65 YEARS, KADUNGAMKUNNATH HOUSE, MUTHOOR P.O., VATTAMKKULAM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ.

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505.

¶11

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE.

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Prv.

¶14

W.P.(C).NO.12601/2014 – A:

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶17

EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MINING PERMIT DATED 5.3.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶18

EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶19

EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 05.03.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶20

EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.3.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶21

EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16.4.2014 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NO.61/2013-14/OE/DOM/M-516/2014 DTD. 26/02/2014 ALONG WITH SKETCH ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

A.M.Shaffique, J.

¶28

====================================

¶29

W.P.(C)No.12601 of 2014

¶30

====================================

¶31

Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2014.

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

1.Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 notice

¶34

issued by the respondent, imposing on the petitioner a sum of

¶35

1,21,440/- towards royalty and fine, on the allegation that he had

¶36

removed excess quantity of earth, other than what is permitted.

¶37

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the authority did

¶38

not verify the permits issued in his favour, as he had only taken cognizance of one permit.

¶39

3.Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that Ext.P4 is an appealable order in terms of Section 49 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' and therefore, since questions of fact arise for

¶40

consideration, the petitioner should be relegated to file appeal.

¶41

W.P.(C)No.12601 of 2014 -:2:-

¶42

4.Having regard to the aforesaid submission, I am also of the view that, since disputed questions of facts arise for consideration, especially, in the light of the petitioner's contention that he was in possession of another permit, under which he had mined ordinary earth, it is for the appellate authority to consider the same, on merits. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of as under:

¶43

Petitioner is at liberty to approach the appellate

¶44

authority, in terms of Rule 49 of the Rules. The said appeal shall be filed within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meantime, it is made clear that, recovery proceedings shall be kept in

¶45

abeyance, until final decision is taken by the

¶46

W.P.(C)No.12601 of 2014 -:3:-

¶47

appellate authority. If the appeal is not filed within the time specified above, the petitioner

¶48

will not get advantage of the judgment.

¶49

A.M.Shaffique, Judge.

¶50

sl.

Ali Muhammed v. the District Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali Muhammed v. the District Geologist

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

M.M.Ali Vs Land Revenue Commissioner

Smt.Retnamma Vs the Union of India

Raghavan Vs the Village Officer

A. Ansari Vs District Collector

Mohammed Ansar Vs the District Collector

Rajesh Vs Thekkumkara Gramapanchayath