Writ petition filed by petitioner challenging proceeding for alleged illegal quarrying on his wife's property, which was initiated mistakenly against him. Court disposed of petition upon confirmation of inadvertent mistake in notice issuance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 2ND POUSHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 26298 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
MICHAEL T. MATHEW AGED 70 YEARS SON OF MATHEW, RESIDING AT THEKKUMKATTIL HOUSE, CHUNDACHERI P. O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 579.
BY ADVS. ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB C.MURALIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA IN THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGIST, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
SRI. B.S SYAMANTHAK - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.26298 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
Alleging indiscriminate quarrying in the property comprised in Resurvey No.56/1 in Block No.36 of Bharananganam Village belonging to the 5th respondent, the wife of the petitioner, Exts.P2 and P4 notices were issued to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent for initiating action for illegal quarrying. According to the petitioner, he has no interest in the property of his wife and that the proceedings as against him pursuant to Exts.P2 and P4 cannot be proceeded with. The petitioner, therefore, filed Exts.P3 and P5 objections to Exts.P2 and P4. Since proceedings pursuant to Exts.P2 and P4 are not dropped, this writ petition is preferred.
WP(C).No.26298 OF 2022
3
“5. It is respectfully submitted that a complaint regarding indiscriminate quarrying has been received in the office of this respondent in the aforesaid land. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau vide letter dated 07.03.2022 called for the report details on the action taken on the complaint regarding illicit quarrying in the aforesaid land violating the Rules. As per the Rule 3(3) of the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, ‘2015 "No person shall transport to be transported any mineral or mineral products by any carrier without having a valid mineral transit pass under these Rules". By virtue of Rule 108 (2) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 “Whenever any person raises without any lawful authority any mineral irom any land, the Government or the competent authority may recover from such person or the occupier of the land the mineral so raised, or where such mineral has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, for the mineral extracted by such person or occupier the land without any lawful authority”. In order to take action as per the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 show cause notice No.1927/DOY/ML/2021 dated 07.03.2022 was sent the Land owner Smt.Lisamma Michale and the petitioner. On 16.03.2022 Smt.Lisamma Michael has submitted a reply that quarrying has been done for construction of building. Since the entire area has been quarried transporting the said granite without valid permission or transit passes violating the Kerala Minor Miner Concession Rules 2015/the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015 demand notice No.1931/DOY/ML/2021 dated 10.06.2022 was
WP(C).No.26298 OF 2022
4
sent to Smt.Lisamma Michale and the petitioner. It is submitted that as per the revenue records the land in Block 36, Resurvey No.56 Comprising of 15.36 ares of land is in the ownership of Smt.Lisamma, W/o Michale T Mathew. The notice was sent to both Smt.Lisamma Michale and the petitioner. The issuance of notice to the petitioner was due to an inadvertent mistake. This respondent will rectify the same in the follow up action regarding the offence.”
(emphasis supplied)
Since it has been stated in the counter affidavit
that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner was by an inadvertent mistake and steps are being taken to withdraw the proceedings as against the petitioner, I am of the view that, nothing survives to be considered in the writ petition.
Recording the affidavit of the 3rd respondent as extracted above, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE
SPR
WP(C).No.26298 OF 2022
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
| EXHIBIT | P1 TRUE COPY |
OF TH | E DEVELOPMENT PERMIT |
|---|---|---|---|
| DATED 22 BHARANANGAN |
/04/2021 AM GRAM |
ISSUED BY THE A PANCHAYATH. |
|
| EXHIBIT | P2 TRUE COPY 10/06/2022 GEOLOGIST. |
OF THE ISSUED |
DEMAND NOTICE DATED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT | P3 TRUE COPY 14/03/2022 THE 3RD RES |
OF THE ISSUED PONDENT |
REPLY NOTICE DATED BY THE PETITIONER TO . |
| EXHIBIT | P4 TRUE COP 07/03/2022 GEOLOGIST T |
Y OF ISSUED O THE P |
THE NOTICE DATED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ETITIONER. |
| EXHIBIT | P5 TRUE COPY PETITIONER 27/06/2022. |
OF THE TO |
REPLY GIVEN BY THE EXHIBIT P4 DATED |
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.
MICHAEL T. MATHEW
THE STATE OF KERALA
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM
THE GEOLOGIST, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST
LISSIAMMA MICHAEL
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
