BIJU K.VARGHESE Vs. GEOLOGIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner owns an item of property. The third respondent, the Village Officer concerned has forwarded Ext.P1 report to the first respondent, the Geologist, stating that the petitioner has removed 2520 cubic meters of ordinary earth from the property. On receipt of Ext.P1 report, the first respondent inspected the property and thereupon, issued a notice to the petitioner on 11.06.2019, alleging that it was revealed in the inspection that the petitioner has removed 2520 cubic meters of ordinary earth from the property, violating the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (the Rules), and directing to show cause why action shall not be taken against him for the violation. According to the petitioner, the natural shape of the property was lost due to accumulation of ordinary earth in the property in the recent flood; that he had only levelled the accumulated earth in the property itself for the agricultural operations carried on therein and he has not removed ordinary earth from the property. The petitioner, in the circumstances, has sent a reply to the first respondent informing him the said stand and requesting him to drop the action proposed against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued Ext.P3 communication by the first respondent styling it as a demand notice and informing the petitioner that the explanation offered by him to the show cause notice is not acceptable; that the petitioner is, therefore, liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,40,800/- towards royalty, price and fine for the ordinary earth found to have been removed from the property, and calling upon the petitioner to pay the said amount. Ext.P3 is under challenge in the writ petition.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) Since the petitioner did not produce the show cause notice and the reply sent by him to the show cause notice, as required by the court, the learned Government Pleader has made available the said documents.