IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7517 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MARY, W/O.MADAKKAPPILLY VARGHESE, KARUVANKADE P.O., MADAKKATHARA-680651. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR. GOVENRMENT PLEADER, SHRI P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.7517/2010-L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is aggrieved by Ext.P2 notice proposing to realise an amount of Rs.17,78,400/- as royalty and Rs.5,000/- as penalty. 2. Petitioner is the wife of deceased Madakkappilly Varghese who was a holder of quarrying permit for granite issued under Rule 4 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. Ext.P1 is the copy of the licence which expired on 30/01/2002. The petitioner was served with Ext.P2 notice to pay various amounts towards royalty and penalty for illegal extraction of the granite. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 undertaking at that point of time agreeing for payment of the amount demanded, by way of instalments. It is averred in paragraph (4) of the writ petition that the petitioner is a housewife without any experience in matters outside the family and she have given the undertaking without knowing the consequences. It is submitted that it cannot be termed as admission of the liability. The consequences of the admission of the liability was not known to her at that point of time. It is further pointed out that the liability has been fixed without any adjudication. W.P.(C). No.7517/2010 -:2:- 3. It is also pointed out that an inspection has not also been conducted before fastening the liability. 4. The remedy of the petitioner is to file an appeal before the competent authority, by including the grounds taken in the writ petition with regard to the circumstances under which Ext.P3 was submitted and the circumstances leading to the repudiation of the liability now. If the appeal is filed before the competent authority, the same will be disposed of in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms