IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 21133 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.V.DEVASSIKUTTY, S/O.VAREED, VA;LIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, SOUTH VELLARAPPILLY PO, CHOWWARA THEKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THRISSUR. *R2 ERYAMKUDY-ELAVOOR JANAKEEYA SAMITHI REG. NO.(R-40/08), KUZHUPPILLIPARAMBIL ELAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY JAYASREE.C, W/O K.A.APU, KUZHUPPILLIPARAMBIL ELAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM (ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.8.2009 IN I.A. NO.10852/09.) BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R1 SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ FOR ADDL.R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 21133 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri. K.A.Jaleel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Sandesh Raja, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Smt. Jayasree Manoj, the learned counsel appearing for the additional second respondent. 2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of bricks. He applied for a dealers licence under Rule 48A of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, to stock brick clay for the purpose of manufacturing bricks. That application was rejected by the first respondent Geologist by Ext.P2 order dated 8.7.2009 relying on the earlier judgments of this Court between the parties. The petitioner contends that the rejection of his application for a dealers licence is arbitrary and illegal. 3. Rule 49 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules confers on the petitioner the right to file an appeal and a second appeal before the appellate and final appellate authority. Under proviso to sub rule (b) of Rule 49A, the appellate authority is also W.P.(C) No. 21133/09 2 empowered to condone the delay in filing the appeal if sufficient cause is shown. The Government have by notification dated 16.11.1978 designated the appellate authority and the second appellate authority. Therefore the petitioner has an effective and meaningful remedy. A Division Bench of this Court has in Biju Chacko & Others v. The Dy. Director, Mining & Geology (2006 (1) KLJ 401) held (though in connection with an application for a quarrying permit) that as Rule 49 entitles persons applying for quarrying permits to file an appeal and a second appeal, there is no justification to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the threshold. In my opinion as the rules enable the petitioner to file an appeal and a second appeal, the petitioner has to invoke the said remedy. I accordingly dismiss this writ petition with the observation that if the petitioner files an appeal challenging Ext.P12 order before the competent appellate authority within two weeks from the date on which he receives a certified copy of this judgment, the appellate authority shall entertain the same as the one filed within time and pass orders thereon expeditiously and in any event within three W.P.(C) No. 21133/09 3 months from the date on which such an appeal is filed and after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Needless to say, the appellate authority shall while considering the appeal, issue notice to and hear the second respondent and the local authority concerned. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps