IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 616 of 2011(B) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.G.MURALI @ MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN EZHUTHACHAN, KOVATH HOUSE, NENMANIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.R.REENA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THRISSUR. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THRISSUR. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 616 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T In the property covered by Exts.P1 to P3, petitioner was manufacturing bricks for some time. It is stated that there were allegations of excess clay mining, which led to a surprise inspection by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, whose report is Ext.P4. Ext.P4, in so far as it is relevant, shows that the area possessed by the petitioner having an extent of 6,129 sq.mtrs, permission was granted for mining 500 MT of clay for which royalty paid was ` 5000/-. It is stated that excavation made in excess of the permit was measured to be 2.96 meters and royalty to be remitted by the petitioner was quantified at ` 3,62,820/-. In another area having an extent of 33,528 sq.mtrs possessed by the petitioner, mining depth was found to be 3 to 5 meters and the loss sustained towards royalty on account of the excess mining was quantified at ` 20,11,680/-. 2. On the basis of the aforesaid quantification, petitioner was issued Exts.P5 and P5(a) notices requiring the petitioner to remit the royalty to which the petitioner submitted Exts.P6 and P7 WPC No. 616/11 :2 : replies disputing the quantification done. The matter was considered and by Exts.P8 and P8(a), the petitioner was again called upon to remit the amount. 3. Against the quantification done as above and the demand made, petitioner filed appeals which were ordered to be considered by this Court in the judgment in WP(C) No.23427/08. Accordingly, Government considered the matter and issued Exts.P9 and P9(a) rejecting the contentions. Aggrieved by the above, petitioner again filed Ext.P10 representation before the Secretary to Government and thereafter has filed this writ petition. 4. The primary contention of the petitioner is that he has not extracted any additional quantity of clay and that at any rate quantification done as reflected in Ext.P4 report and the subsequent orders are incorrect. These questions require assessment of the exact extent of the land available with the petitioner, the exact quantity of clay that was mined by him and the exact loss that was caused to the Government. In my view, if these are the disputes of the petitioner, such disputes will have to WPC No. 616/11 :3 : be raised by the petitioner before the appropriate Civil Court, which alone can adjudicate such issues. Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp