Satheesh vs The Geologist
2021 Latest Caselaw 9320 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.4648 OF 2021(E)


PETITIONER/S:

                SATHEESH,AGED 49 YEARS
                S/O SAHADEVAN,CHATHAMKULAM HOUSE
                KONGAD P O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

                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-
                678014.

      2         THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
                DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT
                SECRETARIAT,INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
                695019.

                GP: SRI.RAVIKRISHNAN

     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.4648 OF 2021(E)               2


                                 JUDGMENT

Alleging illegal mining, the petitioner was served with Ext.P1 demand

notice directing payment of Rs.15,37,000/- towards royalty inclusive of

penalty. Challenging the same, the petitioner 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, seeking

condonation of delay and 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 petitioner.

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 of petitioner depositing

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 of recovery will stand stayed on condition that the petitioner

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

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/2808/2019/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.