Dismissed

Sulaikha v. Geologist

Kerala HC4 Mar 2016WA/1621/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ appeal against a penalty order for unauthorized quarrying, holding that the appellant could not challenge the order after the appeal period expired. However, the Court granted the appellant six months in equal installments to remit the penal amount.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted six months time to remit the penal amount of Rs. 56,800/- in six equal monthly installments.

Sulaikha Vs Geologist — Corruption | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/14TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶7

WA.No. 1621 of 2010 ( ) IN WP(C).27204/2010

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27204/2010 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 02-09-2010

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶10

SULAIKHA, W/O.MUHAMMED ALI, AGED 38 YEARS, KALLARAKUNNU HOUSE, CHERUKAVU, AYIKKARAPADY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), TALUK OFFICE, ERNAD, MANJERI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERUKAVU VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

R1-3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.I. DAVIS

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sou.

¶19

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J

¶20

-------------------------------------------------------------W.A. No. 1621 of 2010

¶21

Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2016

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Shaffique, J

¶24

Appeal has been filed by the petitioner in W.P(C) No.27204 of 2010 challenging judgment dated 2.9.2010. The writ petition came to be filed challenging Ext.P1, P3 and P3(a). By Ext.P1, the Geologist, the Mining and Geology Department has imposed on the petitioner a fine of Rs.56,800/-, on the allegation that the petitioner has unauthorisedly quarried an extent of 1295 cubic meters of laterite stone from the property without permission from the competent authority. This order came to be issued on 5.6.2009.

¶25

According to the petitioner, earlier a notice has been issued on 16.2.2009, to which the petitioner had given a reply as Ext.P2 dated 1.3.2009 and it is without considering such reply or taking any further steps for hearing the petitioner, that Ext.P1 has been passed. Ext.P3 and P3(a) are revenue

¶26

W.A.1621/10 2

¶27

recovery notices issued under section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act as well as under section 34 for attachment of the property of petitioner. Revenue recovery has been initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 order dated 5.6.2009.

¶28

Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that Ext.P1 has become final and no steps has been taken to challenge the same.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that when a reply has been issued in terms of Ext.P2 dated 1.3.2009 denying the fact that petitioner had conducted illegal quarry of the site, it is incumbent on the part of the authority to have considered such objection in accordance with law and no opportunity was given for hearing in the matter.

¶30

Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent authority would however submit that there is some error in Ext.P2. It is stated that notice dated 16.2.2009, which is referred to as item No.3 in Ext.P1 notice was issued to the petitioner. According to the Geologist, no reply was received from the petitioner and accordingly Ext.P1 order has been passed. It is argued by learned Government Pleader that though Ext.P2 prima facie indicates that it is dated 1.3.2009, a

¶31

¶32

W.A.1621/10

¶33

perusal of the same would indicate that it is predated, as reference has been made to notice dated 16.2.2009 and that the petitioner had not received any such notice. Learned counsel for the appellant however, disputed the said fact.

¶34

On a perusal of the documents made available and on a reading of Ext.P2, it appears that it is a reply sent to Ext.P1 and not to notice dated 16.2.2009. Under such circumstances, the learned Single Judge was justified in concluding that no challenge was made to Ext.P1 by preferring an appeal. However, as the appeal period is over, we do not think that there is any necessity to remit the matter to the appellate authority for a re-consideration of the matter. As Ext.P1 order has been issued after issuing notice dated 16.2.2009 and when there was no reply from the petitioner Ext.P2 cannot be taken as a reply to notice dated 16.2.2009. In such circumstances, there is justification on the part of the respondent authority to issue Ext.P1. Ext.P3 and P3(a) are revenue recovery notices pursuant to Ext.P1 and in such circumstances the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant however is seeking time to remit the amount as claimed in Ext.P3.

¶36

¶37

W.A.1621/10

¶38

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances involved in the matter, the petitioner is granted six months time to remit the amount in six equal monthly installments.

¶39

The writ appeal is dismissed with the above observation.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

ASHOK BHUSHAN CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE,

JUDGE

sou.9/3.

// True copy //

Sulaikha v. Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulaikha v. Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed Iqbal Vs Ambika Pappu

Omana C.K. Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs S.Sasidharan Pillai

G.S.Ajayakumar Vs the Commissioner

P.X.James Vs State of Kerala

Sabu Joseph Vs Idukki District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.