IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21375 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHANTHA KANNAN,W/O.K.T.KANNAN,KANNUPARA, RAVANEESWARAM PO, HOSDURG TALUK,KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH SMT.HEMALATHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE(REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER), KASARGOD AT KANHANGD, KASARGOD DISTRICT 671 122. 2. THE TAHASILDAR,TALUK OFFICE, HOSDURG,KANHANGAD, KASARGOD DISTRICT 671 122. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, PULLUR VILLAGE, KANHANGAD,KASARGOD DISTRICT 671 122. SR GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21375 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 14.7.08 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER PULLUR VILLAGE DATED 25.7.11 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING/ORDER OF THE SUB DIVISION MAGISTRATE OF KASARGOD DATED 28.7.11 (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).21375/2011 [V] .............................................. Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P3, an order issued by the first respondent exercising his powers under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, imposing fine on the petitioner, who is the owner of a JCB bearing No.KL-60 C 2328. A reading of Ext.P3 shows that, fine has been imposed compounding the offence on a request made by the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she did not make any such request and therefore, the premise on which the order has been passed is incorrect. 3. In view of the submission of the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader was directed to obtain instructions in the matter. Accordingly the learned Government Pleader produced files which show that according to the first respondent, such a request was made by the petitioner at the time of hearing and it was acting upon that request, the order was passed. W.P.(C).21375/11 2 4. In my view, this disputed question of fact is incapable for resolution in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner seeking her remedies in accordance with law, if she so desires. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs