Gopalakrishnan vs The Geologist
2021 Latest Caselaw 9318 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

     FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.4657 OF 2021(F)


PETITIONER/S:

      1         GOPALAKRISHNAN,AGED 63 YEARS
                S/O GOVINDAN, PALLIKKALKUNNU VEEDU, KOTTAPPADY,
                KONGAD, P.O.PALAKKAD.

      2         BHASKARAN,AGED 59 YEARS
                S/O GOVINDAN, PALLIKKALKUNNU VEEDU, KOTTAPPADY,
                KONGAD, P.O.PALAKKAD.

                BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE GEOLOGIST,DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
                MINING AND GEOLOGY, TOWN BUS STAND COMPLEX, PALAKKAD
                DISTRICT-678 014.

      2         THE DEPUTY SECRETARY,
                DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
                INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 019.

                GP: SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.4657 OF 2021(F)             2

                                JUDGMENT

Alleging illegal mining, the petitioners were served with Ext.P1

demand notice directing payment of Rs.5,53,300/- towards royalty inclusive

of penalty. Challenging the same, the petitioners preferred Ext.P2 appeal

before the 2nd respondent and the same is pending. The appeal has been

filed with a delay of 35 days. Interlocutory applications filed by the

petitioners seeking condonation of delay and for stay of recovery

proceedings are pending in the appeal. Pending the interlocutory

applications recovery proceedings are sought to be initiated, is the

grievance of the petitioners.

2. Taking note of the fact that the extent of delay involved is

meagre, I am of the opinion that interest of justice would be met by

condoning the delay and having the appeal itself heard and disposed of on

its merits within a period of three months. In the meanwhile, proceedings

for recovery could be kept in abeyance on condition that the petitioners

deposit a portion of the demand amount.

3. Accordingly, it is ordered that, the delay of 35 days in filing the

Appeal No.12 of 2021 be condoned and the appeal heard and disposed of on

its merits by the 2nd respondent, within a period of three months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, the

proceedings for recovery will stand stayed on condition that the petitioners

pay ½ of the demand amount within a period of one month from today.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

sd

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO D.O P/2808/2020/A1 DATED 24.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM OF THE PETITIONER FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT DATED 24/02/2021.