IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 3946 of 2006(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SELVADAS, S/O.BENSILY, MERCY BHAVAN, MARATHAKIDY, URIYAKODE PO, PERUMKULAM, NEDUMANGADU TLAUK, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, MINING AND GEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. GOPI, PUTHENVEETTIL, MUDIYOORKONAM, VELLANAD MURI, VELLANAD VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM DIST. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.M.R.SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 18367 OF 2006 THE COURT ON DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.3946/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISUED FROM THE PERUMKULAM VILLAGE OFFICE DTD. 20.6.02. P1(a):- COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE AND PLAN ISSUED FROM THE PERUMKULAM VILLAGE OFFICE DTD. 20.6.02. P2:- COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 9.8.01. P3:- COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER , PERUMKULAM DTD. 27.5.05. P4:- COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE TAHASILDAR, NEDUMANGAD DTD. 24.6.05. P5:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 15.7.05. P6:- COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 5.9.05. P7:- COPY OF THE CHALAN FOR PAYMENT OF RENEWAL FEE DTD. 16.12.05. P8:- COPY OF THE STOP NOTICE NO.1496/DOT/EM/2005 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 19.12.05. P9:- COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE TALUK OFFICE DTD. 21.6.05. P10:- COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.1496/DOT/EM/2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 9.1.05. P11:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DTD. 17.1.06. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a):- COPY OF THE MASS PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY. R3(b):- COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUMKULAM ADDRESSED TO THIS RESPONDENT. R3(c):- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT. 16.1.06. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- WPC. Nos.3946 & 18367 of 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated, 30th the day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The subject matters of the above two writ petitions are same, ie., the operation of quarry in the property belongs to the petitioner in both these writ petitions. As the subject matters are same and the parties are also same, these writ petitions are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. WPC No. 3946/2006 is preferred with a prayer to quash Exts.P8 and P10 proceedings of the Geologist and also prayed to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Geologist to renew the quarry permit of the petitioner. It is also prayed for a direction to the Ist respondent Government to conduct a proper enquiry upon Exts.P8 and P10 and to take appropriate departmental disciplinary proceedings against the 3rd respondent. 3. WPC No.18367 of 2006 is another writ petition preferred by the same petitioner with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing Exts.P9 and P10 issued by the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and the Tahsildar, Nedumangad, WPC 3946 & 18367/06 -:2:- respectively. The second prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 to 6 therein not to obstruct the quarry operations to be conducted in petitioner's property on obtaining the quarry permit. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the property mentioned in Ext.P1 possession certificate. On the strength of Ext.P2 document, permission was given to the 4th respondent to get permit for operating the quarry in the said property of the petitioner and to conduct quarry operation. Ext.P1 (a) is the sketch of the property. According to the petitioner, the period of Ext.P2 expired on 8.8.2005 but he was not willing to renew Ext.P2 in favour of the 4th respondent and as he had decided to get permit in his own name and thus he approached the Geologist, the 3rd respondent for fresh permit. Accordingly, Ext.P6 permit dated 5.9.2005 was issued for the remaining period of three months in that year. Thus, the period of three months expired on 4.12.2005. It is the further case of the petitioner that he had applied for renewal of Ext.P6 permit and he had remitted a sum of Rs.200/- as evidenced by Ext.P7 dated 16.12.2005. According to the petitioner, without taking any step towards the renewal of the permit, and on the contrary to his expectation, 3rd WPC 3946 & 18367/06 -:3:- respondent issued Ext.P8 notice dated 19.12.2005 against him alleging that during the currency of the permit given in the name of 4th respondent Gopi, quarry operation was conducted in the adjacent rock, and by the said notice his explanation sought for for not taking any action in the matter. Ext.P9 dated 21.6.2005 was the report of the Village Officer which would show that unauthorised quarry operation was conducted during the currency of the permit given to the 4th respondent. Thereafter Ext.P10 proceedings is issued by the Geologist- 3rd respondent against the petitioner, directing him to pay price and royalty for the uauthorised quarry operation as alleged in Ext.P8 notice. The petitioner also submitted that the date shown in Ext.P10 as 9.1.2005 may be due to a mistake committed by the 3rd respondent). However, against Ext.P10 order, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P11 objection and the same is pending consideration. It was at this stage, he approached this Court by filing WPC No.3946/2006. 5. According to the petitioner, again he was constrained to approach this Court by filing WPC No.18367/2006 as the District Collector issued Ext.P9 order without prior notice to him and the Tahsildar issued Ext.P10 order dated 24.11.2005 directing him to WPC 3946 & 18367/06 -:4:- forbear from continuing quarry operation, that too also, without hearing him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the mischiefs were done by the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, it is at the instance of the 4th respondent- the Geologist, issued Ext.P8 notice and Ext.P10 proceedings imposing penalty against the petitioner. It is also the case of the counsel that with abundant caution the 4th respondent managed to get Exts.P8 and P10 from the Revenue Department based upon false allegations so as to prevent the petitioner from operating the quarry in case a permit being issued to him. Thus According to the learned counsel, Exts. P8 and P10 are liable to be set aside and he is entitled to get permit as sought by him and the orders of the Tahsildar and Collector which is the subject matter in WPC No.18367/2006 are also liable to set aside as the same are issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that none of the prayers in the writ petitions are maintainable. According to him, the authority to grant permit or renew the same is vested with the 3rd respondent Geologist and he had issued Ext.P10 order and therefore, the remedy of the petitioner is to file appeal before the competent authority and as such the writ petition is not WPC 3946 & 18367/06 -:5:- maintainable. It is also the case to the Government Pleader that against Ext.P9 and P10, the petitioner can raise his objection. Consequently, the matter can be considered on merit and disposed of by the authority who issued Ext.P9 and P10. 7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader and also perused the materials on record. The facts led to the issuing of proceedings Ext.P8 and P10 stated in WPC 3946/2006 are not controverted. Though I have gone through the counter affidavits filed by the Departmental authorities, I failed to see anything to the effect that the illegal and unauthorized quarry operation was conducted by the petitioner during the currency of the permit given to the 4th respondent. There is no materials with the department to show that it was the petitioner who conducted such illegal and unauthorised operation. On the other hand, Ext.P9 report of the Village Officer would show that the unauthorised and illegal operation of the quarry in the adjacent rock was conducted by the 4th respondent for which the petitioner has no role. In the absence of any contra evidence or material, prima facie, it appears that the allegations and finding contained in Ext.P8 and WPC 3946 & 18367/06 -:6:- P10 are not correct and without any basis. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner had preferred Ext.P11 petition against Ext.P10 and the same has not been considered so far. If that be so, I am of the view that the matter can be remitted back to the 3rd respondent Geologist to reconsider the matter afreshly after considering Ext.P11 objection of the petitioner by giving him an opportunity of being heard. 8. Admittedly, in WPC No.18367/2006, Exts.P9 and P10 orders are issued without hearing the petitioner. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that at the time of issuing Exts.P9 and P10, there was no valid permit in favour of the petitioner, even then, when adverse proceedings are issued against a person, it is incumbent upon the departmental authorities to adhere the principles of natural justice so as to avoid any grievance to the affected parties. At this stage, I am not proposing to go into the merits of the case under which Exts.P9 and P10 orders were issued. Of course, the departmental authorities can issue such orders by invoking appropriate provisions of the law govern this field and if the circumstances so demands. That does not mean that such powers can be issued in an arbitrary and illegal manner. Hence, Exts.P9 and P10 cannot be approved by this Court. WPC 3946 & 18367/06 -:7:- Therefore, the District Collector, the superior authority who issued Ext.P9, can be directed to take a final decision in the matter after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible. 9. In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: WPC 3946/2006 : The matter is remitted back to the 3rd respondent Geologist to reconsider the same on the basis of Ext.P11 objection filed by the petitioner after giving him opportunity of being heard and the same shall be done at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment which will be produced by the petitioner. To enable the 3rd respondent to take a fresh decision, Ext.P10 is quashed. WPC No.18367/2006: The petitioner is directed to file a detailed representation before the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram within one month from today. He is further directed to furnish a copy of this judgment before the District Collector along with such representation, who in turn shall , after hearing the petitioner by affording an opportunity to adduce evidence whatever he required, and to dispose of the same within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this WPC 3946 & 18367/06 -:8:- judgment and such representation. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- WPC 3946 & 18367/06 -:9:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..