IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 5022 of 2009(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SCARIA JOSEPH, NJARALAKKATTU, POONJAR SOUTH P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KOTTAYAM 686 002. BY GP SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 5022 of 2009 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED 28.7.95 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 22.11.95 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.9.96 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 24.10.06 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2.2.09 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 10.2.09 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, TEEKOY. (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).5022/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 notice issued by the Geologist demanding an amount of Rs.43,704/- by way of dead rent relatable to certain quarrying which has been done from a portion of his property comprised in survey No.589/5 in Block No.65 of Teekoy Village. Petitioner objects to the same on several grounds. It is firstly contended that no quarrying at all is done from there. Secondly, quarrying if at all, was not done by him but by his son-in-law. Thirdly, he may not be liable for dead rent for removal of minerals, if any, from his property. Fourthly, Ext.P5 was issued without prior enquiry. 2. In my view Ext.P5 may be treated as a show cause notice and the petitioner's objections be considered and a demand notice can be served on the petitioner only after a reasoned order is passed in that regard. W.P.(C).5022/2009 2 3. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P5 as a show cause notice. Petitioner shall be given eight weeks time from today to file objections to Ext.P5. Thereafter, the second respondent shall hear the petitioner and pass a reasoned order untrammelled by any directions or clarifications given in that regard by the Director of Geology. Needless to say since Ext.P5 is directed to be treated as a show cause notice, there shall not be any recovery unless there is a final order followed by the demand notice. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs