IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 23927 of 2006(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. HABOOSA BEEVI, KUNNATHU PARAVILA HOUSE, CHERIYAVELINALLUR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. AYSHA UMMAL, SULEKHA MANZIL, ARKANNOOR P.O., AYOOR. BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA. 4. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, PATTOM PALACE P.O., KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) 23927/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. L1 27219/2000 K.DIS. DATED 07.07.2000 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. 7875/M3/99 DATED 19.02.2000 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 : TREU COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 03.04.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO EXT.P2. EXHIBIT P3(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 03.04.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO EXT.P2 EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.7875/M3/99 DATED 09.06.2000 ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 a : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. 7875/M3/99 DATED 09.06.2000 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 : TREU COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23.06.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO EXTS.P4. EXHIBIT P5 a : TREU COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23.06.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO EXT.P4. EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 12.07.2001 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 a : TREU COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 12.07.2001 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO.21984 OF 2001 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 26.07.2001. EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHINBIT P8 a: TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE REVCOVERY NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES ON 05.10.2005. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 23927 of 2006 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are challenging Exts.P8 and P8(a) Revenue Recovery proceedings pursued against them, to recover the amount allegedly due from them towards the 'royalty' in respect of some unauthorised mining operations, simultaneously challenging Ext.P9 order passed by the 1st respondent, to the extent it has adversely affected the rights and interest of the petitioners with regard to the fixation of the liability. 2. When the matter came for consideration before this Court on 01.09.2006, the coercive proceedings pursued by way of Exts.P8 and P8(a) were intercepted and subsequently on 05.09.2008, taking note of the sequence of events and the materials brought on record, this Court impleaded the Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kerala as an additional respondent. Considering the report filed by the Senior Geologist stating that there was massive illegal mining of rock including by the petitioner from the Government land and that the Tahsildar was well aware of the illegal mining who did not pursue any steps to have it prevented from stopping, despite the fact that the WP(C) No.23927/2006 2 Revenue Authorities are the guardians of the puramboku land, this Court observed that appropriate action is liable to be taken against such Revenue Officials, besides pointing out the necessity to proceed against the other Government officers who connived with the illegal activities and the persons who trespassed and mined from the Government land. The additional 5th respondent, namely the Director of Vigilance was directed to examine whether action could be initiated against those involved, after examining the report submitted by the Geologist. This Court further observed that, in view of the findings in the report, this Court did not find it fit and proper to enable the petitioners to enjoy the unconditional stay any longer. Accordingly, the said order was modified and extended by two months, with directions to the petitioners to remit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each within one month; failing which the recovery would be continue against them. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners could not comply with the said direction given by this Court, reportedly due to the financial constraints. However, it is no more a matter to be considered afresh by this Court at this stage, since absolutely no proceedings have been filed by the petitioners seeking to review the above interim order or by challenging the same by way of appeal. As such the said interim order has become final and it being a self-contained one, WP(C) No.23927/2006 3 this Court does not intend to consider the matter any more in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, the interim orders passed by this Court are made absolute and the Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc