MATHEW PHILIP Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Justice delayed is not a violation of rights alone, but also a threat to the very fabric of the society. The delay of justice is a betrayal of the trust placed in the legal system. This is a strange case in which a statutory authority took 6 months to pass an order in an appeal after concluding the hearing of the parties in the appeal. The hearing in this case was conducted by the second respondent in an appeal filed as per the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (for short, 'Rules 2015') on 23/11/2017. Thereafter, the orders are passed by the appellate authority after about 6 months from the date of the conclusion of the hearing. Whether such an order can be sustained is the question to be decided in this case.

(2.) Petitioner is the owner of a land having an extent of 52 ares comprised in Sy.No.792/9 and 793/3A of Muttuchira Village, Vaikkom Taluk, Kottayam District. According to the petitioner, the illegal mining of red earth was being carried out in the properties near the petitioner's property, and the petitioner has no connection with the same. The tipper lorries of the persons carrying on the illegal mining were parked in the property of the petitioner, waiting their turn to load the red earth, is the submission. According to the petitioner, he is residing in a far away place from this property, and he purchased the property in 2005, after that he had not extracted any minor mineral from his property. According to the petitioner, he was doing only agricultural operations in the property. Ext.P1 is the Mahazar prepared by the 9th respondent while confiscating the vehicles from the property. The petitioner obtained Ext.P1 under the Right to Information Act. It is submitted by the petitioner that as per Ext.P1, the allegation is that the petitioner has tried to remove red earth from his property. On the basis of Ext.P1, the 4th respondent by Ext.P2 order, directed the Department of Geology to ascertain whether any red earth was removed from the property of the petitioner and if so, to levy and collect the royalty and the fine amount for the same from the petitioner. Though in Ext.P1 Mahazar, the allegation is that red earth is being removed from the property of the petitioner, the 4th respondent in his order has stated that quarrying was done with regard to laterite stone also. According to the petitioner, in Ext.P2 there is no finding by the 4th respondent that the petitioner had excavated or done any mining operation in his property. What the 4th respondent had directed is only to ascertain whether any mining was done in the property, is the submission. The 4th respondent proceeded and passed Ext.P2 order on the presumption that since the 7th respondent had seized the vehicles from the property of the petitioner there was mining in the property of the petitioner, is the submission of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the vehicles were confiscated by the 9th respondent and not by the 7th respondent. The 7th respondent was not available anywhere in the scene while the vehicles were confiscated by the 9th respondent, is the submission. According to the petitioner, 9th respondent is not the competent authority for seizing and confiscating the vehicles under the Rules, 2015 and hence the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P1 are illegal, void and without any jurisdiction. It is submitted that the petitioner purchased the property in the year 2005 and after that, no excavation or mining was conducted in his property. Subsequently, the 6th respondent on 21/10/2015 issued a demand notice to the petitioner demanding an amount of Rs.2,45,788.00 as royalty and fine from the petitioner. Though the direction in Ext.P2 was to conduct an inspection and to ascertain whether any earth was removed from the property of the petitioner, the 6th respondent without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry and without seeking any explanation from the petitioner came to the conclusion that the petitioner had removed laterite stone and earth from his property is the grievance of the petitioner. Ext.P3 is the demand notice.

(3.) It is further submitted by the petitioner that before issuing Ext.P3, the 6th respondent sought clarification from the 9th respondent regarding the period in which the mining was done by the petitioner as evident by Ext.P4. As per Ext.P5, the 6th respondent sought clarification from the 9th respondent in this regard. According to the petitioner, from Exts.P4 and P5, it is clear that the 6th respondent is not sure about the period in which the alleged mining was done in the property. This fortifies the contention of the petitioner that mining if any, was done before 2005, the year in which the petitioner had purchased the property, is the submission.