IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22528 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. KESAVAN MOOSSATHU S/O. KUMARAN MOSATHU, KIZHAKKEPPATT HOUSE, P.O.OTHUKKUNGAL, MALAPPURAM. 2. SAROJINI ANTHARJANAM, W/O. KESAVAN MOOSSATHU, KIZHAKKEPPATT HOUSE,P.O.OTHUKKUNGAL, MALAPPURAM. 3. SAVITHRI @ SUJA,D/O.KESAVAN MOOSSATHU KIZHAKKEPPATT HOUSE,P.O.OTHUKKUNGAL, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. MR. SIBY MATHEW MR. PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU MR. B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TIRURANGADI,MALAPPURAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, OTHUKKUNGAL VILLAGE, OTHUKKUNGAL PO,MALAPPURAM. 4. THE GEOLOGIST, MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM. 5. MR.HAKKIM,D/O.ALAVI, KANGINIYIL HOUSE,MATTATHOOR, OTHUKKUNGAL, MALAPPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.K. BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 22528 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 7th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The concerned property is jointly owned by the petitioners. The petitioners gave Ext. P1 licence to the 5th respondent to conduct quarrying of laterite stones from the said property for '5' years. The latter procured a permit for two months in this regard from the 4th respondent. It is stated that, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P3 notice to the first petitioner stating that, the 5th respondent had carried out the operations in excess of the sanctioned quantity, without remitting the necessary royalty before the Government, under which circumstance, the owner of the land in question was liable to satisfy the same. 2. The first petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply in response to Ext.P3, but allegedly without any regard to Ext.P4, the 4th respondent passed Ext.P7 order, fixing the liability on the petitioners. Met with the said circumstances, the first petitioner preferred Ext.P8 appeal before the first respondent, availing the statutory remedy as provided for. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, the said appeal has been numbered as E5 32464 of 2009 and no orders have been passed in the I.A. filed for stay. The case of the petitioners is that, it is without any regard to the pendency of the above proceedings, that the concerned respondents are proceeding with the coercive steps against petitioners, WP (C) No. 22528 of 2009 : 2 : which hence is sought to be intercepted in the present Writ Petition. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 appeal in accordance with law, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as to all others concerned, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that, till such final orders are passed on Ext.P8 appeal, all further coercive proceedings, stated as being pursued against the petitioners pursuant to Ext.P6 series, shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd