ABDUL LATHEEF Vs. GEOLOGIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of royalty and penalty imposed against the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.24339 of 2017, who is a quarry and crusher operator. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to deliver a common judgment.

(2.) W.P.(C) No.24339 of 2017 is filed by the quarry operator seeking to quash Exts.P9, P11 and P12, which are demands raised against the petitioner dated 20.04.2017 and 01.06.2017 and an order passed dated 11.07.2017, affirming Ext.P11 order, respectively. Material facts for the disposal of the said writ petition are as follows:

(3.) Petitioner is a partner of a firm viz., M/s. Eastern Granites, conducting quarrying and crushing unit. According to the petitioner, it is conducted on the basis of licence/permits issued by the respective statutory authorities. While matters stood thus, 7th respondent i.e., the petitioner in the other two writ petitions, initiated proceedings against the petitioner, and the 6th respondent thereupon, initiated proceedings by imposing excess royalty and penalty without any valid grounds. Due to the pendency of the other writ petitions, the 6th respondent, i.e., the District Geologist issued Ext.P9 communication contrary to Ext.P4 Division Bench judgment of this Court to sell the materials confiscated by the 6 th respondent. Subsequently, Ext.P11 demand notice was issued, requiring the petitioner to pay the amount fixed in the said notice within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. On receipt of Ext.P11, petitioner submitted an explanation to the 6th respondent. However, it was declined as per Ext.P12 by the 6th respondent. It is thus aggrieved by the said orders, the said writ petition is filed.