IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1067 of 2009(B) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ---------------------- K.RATNAMANI, W/O.CHANDRAMOHAN, 5/1326, VIJAYA MANDIR, KOTTARAM ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNA KUMAR RESPONDENTS : ------------------------ 1. THE GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.P.N. SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 1067 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The quarrying permit applied for by the petitioner was rejected as per Exhibit P5, on the ground that a substantial amount was due from the petitioner for the quarrying already done. Against that order petitioner filed Exhibit P7 appeal and that was rejected as per Exhibit P8 order of the second respondent. 2. The point raised by the petitioner in relation to the amount that is stated to be due in Exhibits P5 and P8 is that he has already filed writ petition as WP(C) No.17537/2006 disputing the liability and that this Court has granted a stay on condition that the petitioner remits Rs.2,00,000/-. It is stated that he has remitted Rs.2,00,000/-and therefore, at present the respondent could not have rejected his application for quarrying permit on the ground that the money is due. 3. On verifying the records of W.P(C) No. 17537 of 2006, it is seen the liability that was said to be fastened on the petitioner is under dispute and as stated by the petitioner, order of stay has been passed on condition that the petitioner remits Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore, W.P.(C) No. 1067/2009 2 if as stated by the petitioner, Rs.2,00,000/- has been remitted by him, he cannot be called upon to pay the amount until the demand for the said amount is upheld by this court. However, at the same time, it should be ensured that in the event of this Court upholding the liability, there is sufficient safeguard provided so that recovery of the amount is possible. Taking this aspect of the matter into account, I direct that on the the petitioner furnishing adequate security by way of bank guarantee for the balance amount due after deducting Rs.2,00,000/- which he has deposited pursuant to the direction in W.P(C) No.17537 of 2006, first respondent shall reconsider Exhibit P2 application afresh and pass orders. It is directed that the petitioner should keep the bank guarantee for the balance amount alive until the disposal of the W.P(C) No. 17537 of 2006. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm