IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18784 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KUNCHANDI VAIDIAN, AGED 53, SON OF MATHEW VAIDIAN, MAPPILA VEEDU, PUTHENPURAYIL, KIZHAKKEKARA MURI, MAINAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM-691 001. 2. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (R.R.) TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUR, KOLLAM-691 001. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 18784 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T In respect of mining of laterite stones by the petitioner, proceedings under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules were initiated against the petitioner for recovery of royalty. Against adverse orders in the matter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Government under Rule 49(1) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The same was posted for hearing on 21.4.2010. The petitioner submits that the date was mistakenly noted by his advocate as 24.4.2010. When the counsel for the petitioner appeared for hearing on 24.4.2010, he was informed by the office of the 2nd respondent that the matter was taken up for orders on 21.4.2010 itself. Therefore, the petitioner immediately filed Ext.P14 petition, styling it as a review petition, for rehearing of the appeal. But without considering Ext.P14, the Government, on 18.5.2010, passed Ext.P15 order rejecting the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner challenges Ext.P15 order. The petitioner submits that it is because of circumstances beyond his control that he could not appear for hearing 21.4.2010 and detailing the same on 24.4.2010 itself he filed Ext.P14 seeking a rehearing. Therefore, according to the petitioner, after having received Ext.P14, much before passing Ext.P15, the 2nd respondent ought not to have passed Ext.P15 before considering Ext.P14. w.p.c.18784/10 2 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The learned Government Pleader submits that the 2nd respondent had no other go because of the time limit prescribed in Ext.P13 judgment for disposal of the appeal. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I am of opinion that although strictly speaking the 2nd respondent could not have faulted for his action, in view of the fact that prior to passing of Ext.P15 order dated 18.5.2010, on 24.4.2010 itself the petitioner had submitted Ext.P14, the 2nd respondent could have taken a lenient view and could have given the petitioner another opportunity of being heard. In the above circumstances, to enable the 2nd respondent to rehear the petitioner, I quash Ext.P15 and dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner shall appear before the 2nd respondent on 5.7.2010. On that day or on an adjourned date within a week, the 2nd respondent shall hear the petitioner and pass fresh orders in accordance with law, within another two weeks. Till then, coercive proceedings against the petitioner as per the orders impugned in that appeal shall not be proceeded with. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.18784/10 3