IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 3405 of 2009(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. ABOOBACKER, S/O.KADER SHAH RAWTHER, PUNNARLY HOUSE, CHIMBUKAD P.O., KUTHANNUR, PALAKKAD 678 721. 2. AYSHA MARIAM, D/O.KADER SHAH RAWTHER, PUNNARLY HOUSE, CHIMBUKAD P.O., KUTHANNUR, PALAKKAD 678 721. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. ADDL.TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.3405 of 2009-E ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners were ordered to pay Rs.3,000/- as fine alleging illegal quarrying in the properties by the order of the Additional Tahsildar. Against that order petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer on 3.1.2006. It is the case of the petitioners that the appeal is accepted on the file and report of the Tahsildar was called for. Petitioners were directed to file re-joinder to the report. It is stated that the matter was adjourned on several occasions and that the counsel for the petitioners filed argument notes. Now, the petitioners were served with an order by the RDO closing the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 2. Learned Government Pleader, on instruction, would submit that the R.D.O does not have WPC No. 3405/2009 -2- jurisdiction and the appeal ought to have been filed before the District Collector. However, he points out that there is provision to condone delay under Rule 49. 3. In such circumstances the writ petition is disposed of as follows: Petitioner may prefer an appeal before the District Collector. It is open to the petitioner to refer to the pendency of the appeal before the RDO also. In order to facilitate availing of the remedy before the District Collector it is ordered that recovery steps will be kept in abeyance for a period of two months from today. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. MS