IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 17537 of 2006(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.RATNAMANI, W/O. CHANDRAMOHAN, VIJAYAMANDIR, KOTTARAM ROAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPT. OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. 4. TAHASILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, VADAKARA. 5. T.P.RAGHAVAN, PANNIVETTUMCHALIL HOUSE, EKAROOL P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS FOR R.5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V. MANU FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2010, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 17537/2006. -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF REVENUE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS DST. 31-12-1999. EXT.P2 NOTICE DT. 1-3-2000. EXT.P3 OBJECTION DT. 22-5-2000. EXT.P4 ORDER DT. 25-5-2001. EXT.P5 APPEAL DT. 16-7-2001. EXT.P6 STAY ORDER PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON 14-9-2001. EXT.P7 JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO. 26932/2001. EXT.P8 ORDER DT. 6-6-2005. EXT.P9 ORDER DT.6-9-2005. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF UNDERTAKING SWORN TO ON 18-9-1998. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 17537 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 20th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T In respect of a land in which there is a granite quarry, the petitioner obtained a quarrying lease for 12 years. Before this Court, in a batch of writ petitions, a question arose as to whether owners of properties are liable to pay royalty in respect of the granite quarried from own properties. That issue was decided by a Full Bench of this Court in Thressiamma Jacob v. District Office of Department of Mining and Geology, 2000(2) KLT 162 (F.B) holding that royalty is payable to the Government. The matter has been taken to the Supreme Court and appeal filed is pending there. In the meanwhile, in accordance with the Full Bench decision, the liability of the petitioner for payment of royalty was fixed as Rs. 74,280/- by Ext. P1. Subsequently, that was sought to be revised on the ground that the petitioner has actually quarried a total of 70741cubic metres of granite as against the permitted quantity of 4880 cubic metres. The petitioner challenged that finding in Ext. P5 statutory appeal. Petitioner's grievance now is that the Government is refusing to consider that appeal on the ground that the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. The Government has passed Exts.P8 and P9 orders to that effect. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “1) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Exts.P8 and P9 orders; 2) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Government to consider and pass orders on Ext. P5 statutory appeal on merits after hearing the petitioner; 3) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, W.P.C. No. 17537/2006. -: 2 :- order or direction to quash Ext. P4 order.” 2. The contention of the petitioner is that even assuming that the appeal pending before the Supreme Court has any bearing on the issue involved in Ext. P5 appeal, the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court is no ground to deny jurisdiction under Rule 49 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, which gives a right of appeal to the petitioner. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed to the effect that the Government cannot consider the appeal while the S.L.P is still pending. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. As far as the appeal filed by the petitioner is concerned, the question is as to what is the total quantity of granite quarried by the petitioner. The question as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay royalty on the same is only a subsidiary issue as far as the appeal is concerned and therefore I do not think that the 1st respondent can deny jurisdiction on the ground of pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court. In any event, the same does not affect the Government insofar as as per the Division Bench decision, the petitioner is liable to pay royalty for the quantity determined in the appeal. Any person filing an appeal under the Rules has a right to get the appeal disposed of in accordance with law expeditiously. Ext. P5 appeal was filed as early as in 2001. I do not think that the 1st respondent can postpone disposal of the appeal on the ground that the appeal against the judgment of the Full Bench on the question of liability to pay royalty is pending before the Supreme Court. W.P.C. No. 17537/2006. -: 3 :- In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to pass final orders on Ext. P5 appeal filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner has paid any amount in respect of the subject matter as per the interim orders or otherwise that shall also be taken note of by the Government in the matter of deciding the amount payable by the petitioner. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/