IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 25412 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- 1. A.M.CHACKOCHAN, MANAGING PARTNER, AISWARYA GRANITES, ELAVINMOODU, ELAMAD, AKKANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM-691 533. 2. TINSON JOHN, MANAGING PARTNER, AISWARYA GRANITES, ELAVINMOODU, ELAMAD, AKKANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM-691 533. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691 013. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691 013. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOTTARAKKARA-691 506. 4. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM-691 002. 5. B.AJITH KUMAR, ABILA BHAVAN, KAYILA, VELIYAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. R1 TO 4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE ADDL. R5 ADV. SMT.C.B.ANUROOPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25412 of 2011(B) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX ------------- PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ------------------------------ EXT.P1 PHOTO COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.9633/10 DT.4.7.11. EXT.P1(a) PHOTO COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.23169/10 DT.4.7.11. EXT.P1(b) PHOTO COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.24620/10 DT.4.7.11. EXT.P1(c) PHOTO COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.24621/10 DT.4.7.11. EXT.P1(d) PHOTO COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.23170/10 DT.4.7.11. EXT.P1(e) PHOTO COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.23171/10 DT.4.7.11. EXT.P1(f) PHOTO COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.26253/10 DT.4.7.11. EXT.P1(g) PHOTO COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.26289/10 DT.4.7.11. EXT.P1(h) PHOTO COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.32194/10 DT.4.7.11. EXT.P1(i) PHOTO COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.32195/10 DT.4.7.11. EXT.P1(j) PHOTO COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.9632/11 DT.4.7.11. EXT.P1(k) PHOTO COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.14805/11 DT.4.7.11. EXT.P1(l) PHOTO COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.14806/11 DT.4.7.11. EXT.P2 PHOTO COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.19/2010-11/DOQ/ CRPS/GBS/S2/2444/10 DATED 22.10.2010 EXT.P2(a) PHOTO COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.32/2010-11/DOQ/ CRPS/GBS/S2/3039/10 DATED 30.1.2011 EXT.P2(b) PHOTO COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.33/2010-11/DOQ/ CRPS/GBS/S2/3040/10 DATED 31.1.2011 EXT.P2(c) PHOTO COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.34/2010-11/DOQ/ CRPS/GBS/S2/3041/10 DATED 31.1.2011 EXT.P3 PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT)NO.1241/2010/ID DATED 03.08.2010. vk WP(C).No. 25412 of 2011(B) ------------------------------------ EXT.P4 PHOTO COPY OF LETTER NO.DQ/S2/3135/2010. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.7.2011, BEARING NO.A-5468/2011 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24.11.2010. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.2.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT NO.K.DIS.5683/2010/A. EXT.P8 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 27.8.2011. EXT.P9 COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.78327/RC3/09/LSGD DT. 15.3.10. EXT.P10 COPY OF THE GO.(MS)NO.239/2010/ID DT.1.12.10. EXT.P11 COPY OF THE GO.(MS)NO.253/2010/ID DT.4.12.10. EXT.P12 COPY OF LICENSE NO.C5-4893/2011-12/5 DT.31.3.11 EXT.P12(a) COPY OF LICENSE NO.C5-4894/2011-12/6 DT.31.3.11 EXT.P12(b) COPY OF LICENSE NO.C5-4895/2011-12/7 DT.31.3.11 EXT.P12(c) COPY OF LICENSE NO.C5-4896/2011-12/8 DT.31.3.11 EXT.P12(d) COPY OF LICENSE NO.C5-4897/2011-12/4 DT.31.3.11 EXT.P12(e) COPY OF LICENSE NO.C5-4899/2011-12 DT.31.3.11 EXT.P12(f) COPY OF LICENSE NO.C5-4900/2011-12/2 DT.26.2..11 EXT.P12(g) COPY OF LICENSE NO.C5-4902/2011-12/9 DT.31.3.11 EXT.P13 COPY OF APPEAL DATED 4.8.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.14 COPY OF APPEAL IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 15.9.2011. EXT.P15 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS ALONG WITH THE APPEAL DATED 15.9.2011. EXT.P16. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2011 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPNDENT. vk WP(C).No. 25412 of 2011(B) ----------------------------------- EXT.P17. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ADDL. 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.07.2011 EXT.P18. COPY OF TE LETTER NO.9248/M4/2010 DATED 21.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P19. COPY OF THE REPORT SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 2.12.2011 BEARING No.B5-32603/2010 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS ------------------------------- EXHIBIT R1(A). COPY OF THE LIST OF L.C. CASES REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER EXT.R5 (A). COPY OF COMPLAINT BEFORE THE D.G.P. ON 22.7.2011 ALONG WITH IT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD. EXT.R5(B). COPY OF NOTICE DATED 20.09.2011 ISSUED BY DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.R.), KOLLAM. EXT.R5 (C). COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 30.9.2011. EXT.R5 (D). COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM THE COLLECTORATE. / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 25412 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioners are managing partners of a firm by name Aiswarya Granites. It is stated that they purchased a quarry and crusher unit from M/s. Pathi Bell J.V Private Limited. Exts. P1 series are permits issued by the 3rd respondent and Exts. P2 series are the permits issued by the 4th respondent under the consolidated royalty scheme. 2. According to the petitioners, while the petitioners were thus carrying out their activities, 4th respondent issued notice based on Ext.P6 complaint made by the additional 5th respondent and the petitioners were called upon to remit an amount of ` 68,51,982/-(Rupees Sixty eight lakhs fifty one thousand nine hundred and eighty two only) towards royalty. Against that demand the petitioners filed an appeal to the Government of Kerala. In that appeal Ext.P3 order was passed, directing the geologist to reconsider the case afresh, taking fresh W.P.C. No. 25412 OF 2011 -2- measurements and intimating the petitioner of the amount due from them. It is stated that accordingly the amount due was quantified as ` 47,07,982/-(Rupees Forty seven lakhs seven thousand nine hundred and eighty two only) which was remitted by the petitioner in time. This fact is recorded in Ext.P4, report of 4th respondent to the Director of Mining and Geology. 3. Petitioner say that though the issue raised by the 5th respondent pursuant to Ext.P6 complaint made by them was thus closed with the remittance of amount, again, the 1st respondent inspected the site and issued Ext.P5 order dated 4.7.2011 finding violation of provisions of Kerala Land Conservancy Act, Survey and Boundaries Act, Kerala Land Reforms Act and Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules and on that basis the permits were also ordered to be suspended. 4. Aggrieved by Ext.P5, petitioners filed Exts.P13 and P14 appeals to the District Collector. The District Collector heard the parties and disposed of the appeals by Ext.P16 order dated 20.10.2011. In that order District Collector found that Ext.P5 order was passed by the 1st respondent violating natural justice. W.P.C. No. 25412 OF 2011 -3- On that basis, the that order was set aside and the 1st respondent was directed to reconsider the matter afresh after getting the site inspected by the Senior Geologist. 5. In this writ petition what is now under challenge is Ext.P16. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P6 complaint made by 5th respondent culminated Ext.P3 order of the Government and that the liability thereunder has been discharged by remitting ` 47,07,982/-(Rupees Forty seven lakhs seven thousand nine hundred and eighty two). It is therefore urged that a matter which is closed is now reopened. He also relied on Ext.P7 report of the RDO himself, dated 8.2.2011, suggesting that there was no unauthorised quarrying. Ext.P19 report of the Tahsildar is also relied in this behalf. 6. When this contention was urged, in order to ascertain the factual correctness of this assertion this Court has directed the respondents to file counter affidavit. Accordingly, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. In this counter affidavit, it is stated thus: W.P.C. No. 25412 OF 2011 -4- “It is hereby submitted that this respondent conducted a surprise inspection in the premises for which the lease was granted to the petitioner and found that the petitioner conducted quarrying operations within and outside the permissible areas. It is hereby submitted that earlier it was found that the petitioner conducted quarrying operations outside the permissible areas and extracted 387799 MT granite building stone. An amount of ` 47,07,982/- was levied as royalty, siegnorage and fine for the unauthorized quarrying. It is hereby submitted that this respondent issued Ext.P5, after satisfying that the petitioner is engaged in widespread illegal quarrying from the Government lands under the guise of permits granted to him by the Department of Mining and Geology and Department of Revenue. This respondent satisfied that the petitioner exceeded the limits of property in which permission was granted for conducting quarrying operations. Moreover, 19 L.C. cases were registered against the petitioner. A true copy of the list of L.C. cases registered against the petitioner is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(a).” 7. Proceeding further, it is also stated that a detailed measurement is highly necessary to ascertain the exact quantity of granite quarried by the petitioner from the area. From the averments in the counter affidavit, what emerges is that the liability that is to be ascertained is not one that was discharged W.P.C. No. 25412 OF 2011 -5- by the petitioners by remitting ` 47,07,982/-(Rupees forty seven lakhs seven thousand nine hundred and eighty two). It is also the case of the respondents that the petitioners exceeded the limits of the property in which permission was granted for quarrying operation. 8. Thus in the nature of allegations raised against the petitioners, which are also reiterated in the counter affidavit, the factual issue that is to be ascertained is, whether there was excess quarrying by the petitioners after remitting the amount mentioned in Ext.P4 and if so what is the exact liability that arises thereunder. This is a factual issue which only the geologist can confirm. It is therefore, that the District Collector ordered in Ext.P16, that the RDO will finalise the matter afresh with notice to the petitioners and after getting the property inspected by the geologist. 9. It is the case of the petitioners that there was no excess quarrying and in support of this contention, counsel relied on Exts.P7 and P19. These are reports of RDO himself and the Tahsildar. Now that the matter is to be adjudicated by the RDO, W.P.C. No. 25412 OF 2011 -6- it is for the petitioners to produce those documents before the RDO, who will certainly consider these documents also. 10. Therefore, while I decline to interfere with Ext.P16, I direct that the RDO shall adjudicate the matter as ordered by the District Collector, with notice to parties. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within four weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case the order passed by RDO in favour of the petitioners, it will be open to them, to seek extension of the period of the permits by making appropriate applications to respondents 3 and 4. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Kp/-