Writ petition challenging dismissal of an appeal against a demand notice for alleged illegal mining in puramboke land. The High Court found the appellate order non-speaking, set it aside and remitted the matter for fresh disposal on merits.
Ext.P12 appellate order set aside; appeal remitted for fresh disposal on merits within two months.
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 C. JAYACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2024/14TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO.20007 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
M.THAPASI, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O.MUTHUSWAMY NADAR, SAVIN BHAVAN, ANAPPARA, KUDAPPANAKODU P.O., VELLARADA, PIN – 695505.
BY ADV. SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, 2ND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION BUILDING, CIVIL STATION ROAD, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695043.
W.P(C) No.20007 of 2024
- 2 -
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C) No.20007 of 2024
- 3 -
JUDGMENT Dated, this the 04th day of June, 2024
Petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P12 order passed by the 2nd respondent/appellate authority in Ext.P9 appeal preferred by the petitioner, as against Ext.P6 demand notice.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader on behalf of all the respondents.
3. Vide Ext.P6, the petitioner is alleged to have indulged in illegal mining in respect of puramboke land, which is comprised in Survey No.505/1 of Vellarada village (Block No.34) to the extent of 17,080 MT. Ext.P6 calls upon the petitioner to pay a total sum of Rs.12,54,760/-, which includes royalty, compounding fee, etc.
4. Challenging Ext.P6, the petitioner preferred Ext.P9, essentially contending that the petitioner
W.P(C) No.20007 of 2024
- 4 -
has been issued with necessary permit to conduct mining activities in respect of properties comprised in Sy.Nos.506/4-1, 506/4-2, 506/4-3, 506/2 and 506/11 of Block No.34 of Vellarada village, under and by virtue of the mining permits specifically mentioned in paragraph no.1 of the appeal. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he has not conducted any mining, except in respect of the above
referred lands and that no mining, whatsoever, is conducted by him in the puramboke land, as alleged in Ext.P6. The petitioner also canvassed a contention that the alleged mining in respect of the puramboke land took place a year before the petitioner was granted permit. Yet another contention raised is that the petitioner's property, where he was
permitted to conduct mining as per the permit, is
located away from the alleged puramboke land.
5. When Ext.P9 appeal was not considered by the 2nd respondent/appellate authority, the petitioner approached this Court, which culminated in judgment
W.P(C) No.20007 of 2024
- 5 -
in W.P.(C) No.39750/2023 directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders in Ext.P9 appeal within the time specified therein. It is accordingly that Ext.P12 order has been passed by the 2nd respondent/ appellate authority, dismissing Ext.P9 appeal. The ground urged in this Writ Petition is to the effect that none of the contentions, specifically canvassed by the petitioner in Ext.P9, has been addressed in Ext.P12 order. Learned counsel would point out that, up to paragraph no.7, the order merely records the contentions of the parties. In paragraph no.7, which contains the operative portion, the order merely refers to Ext.P6 and states that there is no merit in the appeal, a self serving statement, without referring to any of the contentions or facts, which are raised in Ext.P9 appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsel and perusing Ext.P12 order, this Court can only endorse the petitioner's contentions. No reason, whatsoever, is seen stated in Ext.P12 to confirm Ext.P6 demand
W.P(C) No.20007 of 2024
- 6 -
notice. The specific contention of the petitioner that he had not indulged in any quarrying activity in the puramboke land, is not seen addressed. No material is seen relied upon by the appellate authority to arrive at a conclusion that it was the petitioner, who allegedly conducted mining in the puramboke land.
7. The course adopted by the 2nd respondent vide Ext.P2 can hardly be sustained. The causal manner, in which appeals are being handled by the statutory authorities, is a matter of serious concern and the same results in multiplicity of writ petitions being filed in this Court. The 2nd respondent/appellate authority did not feel it necessary, atleast to address the very ground raised in Ext.P9 appeal and pass appropriate orders thereon. It is saddening to note that in an order, which runs to nine pages, the appellate authority had not felt the necessity to devote some time and attention to the grounds raised in Ext.P9 appeal.
W.P(C) No.20007 of 2024
- 7 -
8. Ext.P12 cannot be sustained in law and the same is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority, with a direction to dispose of Ext.P9 appeal on merits and in accordance with
law. It is specifically directed that the contentions raised in Ext.P9 shall be addressed and answered by the 2nd respondent. The above exercise shall be done within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Any non-compliance, especially in the matter of the direction to dispose of the appeal on merits, will be viewed seriously.
This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE
ww
W.P(C) No.20007 of 2024
- 8 -
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20007/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14-06-2018 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT VIDE NO.B149556/2015. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 04-06-2020. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 02-04-2022 REJECTING EXHIBIT P-2 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18-072022 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TAHSILDAR, NEYYATTINKARA TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 18-10-2022 VIDE NO.G4/49556. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 16-10-2019 BY THE GEOLOGIST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 25-01-2020 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE NO.3207/DOT/ML/2015. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR RECOVERY IN FORM 25 DATED 28-12-2021 VIDE RRC NO.2020/3783/01. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF FIRST APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04-03-2022. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 2103-2022 FROM THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GEOLOGIST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM VIDE NO.47/A4/2022/INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT.
W.P(C) No.20007 of 2024
- 9 -
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.39750 OF 2023 DATED 29-11-2023.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE G.O.(RT) NO.187/2024/ID DATED 05-03-2024.
1 issue framed by the court
Was Ext.P12 appellate order sustainable when it failed to address or give reasons on the grounds raised in the appeal against the illegal mining demand notice?
M.Thapasi
The State of Kerala
Joint Secretary to the Government, Industries Department
District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram
Geologist, Mining and Geology Department
Revenue Divisional Officer
C. JAYACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
