V.SOMANATHAN Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the writ petitioner, who having been aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.19513 of 2020 dated 01.10.2020, has preferred this appeal. The subject issue relates to action initiated by the Geologist as per the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 ('Concession Rules, 2015' for short) and the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules 2015 ('Transportation Rules, 2015' for short) to recover the amounts falling due on account of the quarrying of ordinary earth and transportation of the same by the appellant without securing any permit from the geologist. .

(2.) The case of the appellant is that, appellant is the owner in possession of 43.36 ares of dry land in Re.Sy. No.100/9-2 and 12 of Palamel Village. According to the appellant, he has purchased the said property with a residential building during the year 2012 as per sale deed Nos. 1521, 2898 and 1191 of 2012 of the Office of the Sub Registrar, Nooranad.

(3.) The case projected in the writ petition was that the said property was planted with rubber trees. The appellant had sold the old and unyielding rubber trees in the property in question, and while he was engaged in the activity of removing the root of the rubber trees using an excavator, the Sub Inspector of Police, Nooranad Police Station, rushed to the property and had prepared Ext.P1 Mahazar on 18.10.2017 alleging that, the appellant has removed ordinary earth from the property in question without securing necessary permit from the Authority as per Rules, 2015. Anyhow, the Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, Cherthala, Alappuzha District, issued notice to the appellant demanding to produce documents regarding permission to remove the ordinary earth. But, the appellant did not have any documents and thereupon he could not satisfy the conditions in the notice issued by the Geologist. Anyhow, it is admitted that, the Assistant Geologist visited the property and prepared Ext.P4 Mahazar on 07.04.2017 and thereafter, at the request of the appellant, the Geologist inspected the property and prepared Ext. P5 Mahazar on 06.02.2018. It is an admitted fact that on the basis of the action initiated by the Geologist, Ext.P7 order was passed imposing royalty of Rs.75,600/- and directed the appellant to pay the same, failing which further action was threatened. Aggrieved by the order, appellant has preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority as per Rules, 2015. However, it was dismissed as per Ext.P8 dated 18.11.2018 affirming the order of the Geologist. Being aggrieved, appellant preferred a second appeal in accordance with Rules, 2015, before the second Appellate Authority and the said Authority has also dismissed the appeal affirming the order passed by the Geologist as well as the first Appellate Authority. It was thus challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Statutory Authorities, the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge after assimilating the fact situations has arrived that the following findings at paragraphs 3 and 4:-