IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2011 / 2ND POUSHA 1933 WP(C).No. 34808 of 2011(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- R. SANTHOSH, SANTHOSH NIVAS, CHIRAKKARA THAZHAM.P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SIVARAJ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM - 691 013. 2. SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM - 691 001. 3. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM - 691 506. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, VELIYAM, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM - 691 540. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.34808/2011-A: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LATEST PERMIT DTD. 20/06/11 GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PERMIT DTD. 24/09/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE INFORMATION DTD. 03/12/2011 RECEIVED FROM THE TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKARA. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 11/11/2011 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE RECEIVED FROM R.3, RECEIVED ON 16/12/2011. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 17/12/11 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 17/12/11 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R.3. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).34808/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he is conducting a quarry in his property situated in R.S.No.3/9 of Veliyam Village. It is stated that without any notice or other opportunity, by Ext.P4, the liability of Rs.16,83,320/- is sought to be fastened on him towards royalty. On receipt of Ext.P4 from the second respondent, petitioner filed Ext.P5 objection. This objection has not been considered so far. In the meanwhile, apprehending that coercive action is likely to be taken for realizing the amount, the writ petition has been filed. 2. Since quantification of the liability as per Ext.P4 has been done without an opportunity to the petitioner, it is only appropriate that Ext.P5 should be dealt with before any further action is taken in the matter. 3. Therefore, I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition, the second respondent will consider Ext.P5 objection filed by the petitioner to Ext.P4, to the extent it affects him, as expeditiously as possible at W.P.(C).34808/11 2 any rate withing four weeks thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs