IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2547 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ROSILY PAUL, W/O.DR.PAUL CHAKKALAKKAL, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, THRITHALOOR P.O. VADANAPPALLI, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR. 4. K.A.JENSON, S/O.ANTONY, KALLOOKKARAN HOUSE, VENDORE, AMBALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY R1 TO 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI BENNY VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008 ALONG WITH WP(C) 3651/098, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 2547 & 2651 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: January 30, 2008 JUDGMENT When these writ petitions were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners confined the submissions to the invalidity of the order dt. 11.1.2008 issued by the Geologist, Thrissur who has been impleaded in these writ petitions as respondents 3 and 2 respectively. The common contention that is raised is that it was on the basis of an inspection of the site conducted by the geologist that quantification that quantification of clay allegedly removed has been done and royalty demanded from the petitioners. According to the petitioners when the inspection was conducted, they were not given notice and therefore they could not make submissions before the geologist. 2. When this submission was made, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions in the matter. Accordingly a counter affidavit has been filed by the geologist concerned. Along with the counter affidavit he has produced Ext.R2(a) WP(C) 2547 & 2651/08 Page numbers communication that he had issued to the Village Officer, Amballur. Although a copy of the said communication is addressed to one of the petitioners in WP(C) 2651/08, what I notice is that even this communication does not indicate the date or time of inspection, but only required the village officer to indicate his convenience for such inspection. Therefore, Ext.R2(a) cannot be taken as a notice of inspection to justify the unilateral inspection that has been conducted by the geologist. For this reason I hold that the inspection conducted and the quantification made by the impugned orders, based on the materials collected during the course of the inspection, cannot be sustained. 3. Accordingly, quashing the order dated 11.1.2008, I dispose of these writ petitions directing that the geologist, Thrissur will conduct a fresh inspection of the site concerned with notice to the petitioners and thereafter, based on the materials collected, shall re-quantify the quantity of clay removed and also the royalty payable by the respective petitioners. 4. The petitioner in WP(C) 2547/08 has a case that it was without her consent, the 2nd petitioner in WP(C) 2651/08 has done WP(C) 2547 & 2651/08 Page numbers the mining and therefore he alone is liable to pay the royalty that is now demanded. Such inter se dispute between the parties cannot be adjudicated or resolved in the present proceedings. If at all the petitioner has any such case, it is for the petitioner to pursue the other remedies that are available for such relief. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-