IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3395 of 2011(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RADHAKRISHNAKURUP, PERUVALLIKUTTIYIL, ERAVICHURA NADUVILKARA, SOORANADU SOUTH, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM, PIN 671001. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM, 671001. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, KUNNATHOOR 671002. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.3395 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Revenue recovery steps initiated for realising the amount of royalty and penalty, imposed under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, is under challenge in this writ petition. Through Ext.P1 order the 3rd respondent had imposed royalty to the tune of Rs.3,50,600/- along with penalty of a sum of Rs.5,000/- against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner had unauthorisedly extracted laterite stones from the property owned by the petitioner and his wife. Against Ext.P1 order, the petitioner had filed Ext.P3 appeal before the 2nd respondent, who is the appellate authority under the relevant rules. But the appeal was rejected through Ext.P4 order observing that it was not filed within the time stipulated under the relevant rules and that the petitioner has not remitted the required fee. However, it is stated that the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 application seeking condonation of delay and restoration of the appeal. W.P.(C).3395/11 -2- Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering pendency of Ext.P5, steps for recovery has now been initiated. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this court to restrain recovery steps till the 2nd respondent considers Ext.P5 petition. 2. Heard; learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that, interest of justice will be served if the 2nd respondent is directed to dispose of Ext.P5 on an early basis and till then to restrain the recovery steps. 3. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 application, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. Till such time orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P1, which is now initiated on the basis of Ext.P2 notice, shall be kept in abeyance. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb