Disposed

Baby K.D v. the Director of Mining and Geology

Kerala HC5 Dec 2019WP(C)/740/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an order rejecting renewal of a dealer's licence. The court did not set aside the order but directed the authority to hear objections within one month. The authority must decide on modification before taking further action.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file objections within one month; Geologist to hear petitioner and decide on modifications within one month.

Baby K.D Vs the Director of Mining and Geology — Kerala HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.740 OF 2019(N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BABY K.D

¶8

AGED 66 YEARS S/O DEVASSY, KOLECHERRY HOUSE, SREEMOOLANAGARAM P.O., CHOWARA VILLAGE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SMT.S.INDU

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4.

¶12

2 THE GEOLOGIST OFFICE OF THE GEOLOGIST, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 021.

¶13

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM, ERNAKULAM-627977.

¶14

4 THE KANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANJOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM-627978.

¶15

5 THE SECRETARY KANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KANJOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM-627978.

¶16

6 JAMES AGED 65 YEARS S/O YOHANNAN, UTHUPPAN HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 575

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.P.G.JOSE BY ADV. SRI.V.A.VINOD

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

SR. GP. - RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No.740 OF 2019(N)

¶22

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P9, which is the order issued by the Geologist rejecting his application for renewal of his dealer's licence citing three reasons.

¶25

The petitioner says that two among the reasons shown in Ext.P9 are completely without basis, while he admits one among them - that he had stocked clay in his property without obtaining prior permission for the same. The petitioner says that, however, Ext.P9 is untenable in law, since the decision recorded therein is not based on the admitted violation but on basis of the other two, which are much more serious in nature. The petitioner contends that, therefore, Ext.P9 is liable to be set aside by this Court, primarily because it has been issued without affording necessary opportunity of being heard to him and without permitting him to produce necessary documents to show that the allegations therein are not tenable. The petitioner therefore, prays that Ext.P9 be directed to be reconsidered, after he is given an opportunity of making appropriate representation against the same.

¶26

WP(C).No.740 OF 2019(N)

¶27

¶28

The learned Senior Government Pleader -

¶29

Sri.Rajasekharan Nair, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submits that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed on record, wherein the violations alleged against the petitioner had been specifically enumerated. He says that since the petitioner now admits to at least one among them, namely of stocking and selling clay from his property without proper licence, Ext.P9 cannot be found fault with. He then adds that if the petitioner only requires another opportunity of his version being heard by the Geologist, the same can be done; but prays that Ext.P9 be not set aside but only that the petitioner be given an opportunity of representing against the same, leading to a further order to be issued by the Geologist.

¶30

When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that the petitioner takes a specific stand that two among the allegations in Ext.P9 are untenable, though he admits to one as indicated above. Obviously, therefore, Ext.P9 cannot be found fault with to its full extent, but I am of the view that since the petitioner asserts that he will be able to establish before the Geologist that he had stocked the clay based on

¶31

WP(C).No.740 OF 2019(N)

¶32

¶33

valid documents, this is also a matter that the Geologist will have to consider, after affording an opportunity of being heard to him. This is more so because, the petitioner, as I have already said above, has expressly objected to two among the allegations made against him and he says that they are completely without basis.

¶34

In the afore circumstances, without entering into the merits of any of the contentions of the parties and without setting aside Ext.P9, I leave liberty to the petitioner to file necessary objections against Ext.P9, which shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; in which event, the said Authority will hear the petitioner and then decide if any modification to Ext.P9 is required, based on the materials and inputs to be placed before him by the petitioner.

¶35

The afore exercise shall be completed by the Geologist as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month after the objections are preferred before him by the petitioner in terms of this judgment.

¶36

Needless to say, once orders in compliance of these

¶37

WP(C).No.740 OF 2019(N)

¶38

¶39

directions are issued by the Geologist and communicated to the petitioner, the Geologist will be at liberty to take further action against the petitioner depending upon his conclusions therein, if it is so found warranted at that time.

¶40

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶41

SD/-

¶42

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

¶45

WP(C).No.740 OF 2019(N)

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶49

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DEED DATED 12.7.2018 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 9.5.2006 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON 26.2.2009.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 2.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR BEING PRODUCED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE CHELLAN EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF REGISTRATION FEE FOR DEALER'S LICENCE.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH DATED 19.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2018 IN WPC NO.40869/2018.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE NATURE AND LIE OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P10 A	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE NATURE AND LIE OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P10 B	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE NATURE AND LIE OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P10 C	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE NATURE AND LIE OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P10 D	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE NATURE AND LIE OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P10 E	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE NATURE

¶50

WP(C).No.740 OF 2019(N)

¶51

¶52

EXHIBIT P10 F	AND LIE OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THE NATURE AND LIE OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 A	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 B	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 C	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 D	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 E	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 F	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 G	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 H	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 I	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 J	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 K	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 L	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 M	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 N	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 O	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN

¶53

WP(C).No.740 OF 2019(N)

¶54

¶55

	VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 P	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 Q	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 R	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 S	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 T	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 U	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 V	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 W	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 X	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 Y	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
EXHIBIT P11 Z	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY CHERIAN VARKEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

Baby K.D v. the Director of Mining and Geology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby K.D v. the Director of Mining and Geology

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

V.Bhagyalakshmi Vs the Secretary

D.Sugathan Vs State of Kerala

Velayudhan Nair Vs the Secretary

Manoj Tharakan Jose Vs the District Geologist

Kalladichola Harijan Colony Committee Vs the District Collector

Joseph Ouseph, Vs District Collector