K J Abraham vs The District Geologist
2022 Latest Caselaw 7432 Ker

`             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
    FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944
                      WP(C) NO. 19888 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

              K J ABRAHAM
              AGED 71 YEARS
              SON OF. JOSEPH,
              KALAMANNIL HOUSE, KOZHENCHERY P.O.,
              PATHANAMTHITTA DT.,, PIN - 689641
              BY ADV JESTIN MATHEW


RESPONDENT

              THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST
              DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT
              OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
              COLLECTORATE P.O.,KOTTAYAM DT, PIN - 686002



              GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SYAMANTHAK


       THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP    FOR
ADMISSION      ON   24.06.2022,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No. 19888 of 2022       :2:




                        JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24th day of June, 2022

The petitioner, who is running a granite unit, has

approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P1 demand notice

issued by the respondent.

2. The petitioner states that the respondent-District

Geologist has granted a dealers licence to the petitioner's

unit. In Ext.P1 demand notice dated 09.05.2022, it was

alleged that the petitioner illegally stored 7316 MT granite

products. A penalty of Rs.5,51,752/- was imposed on the

petitioner.

3. The petitioner states that imposition of penalty is

without any notice. As per Rule 24 of the Kerala Minerals

(Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation)

Rules, 2015 ('the Rules', for short), the respondent is bound

to give a show- cause notice to the petitioner and hear him.

Any liability can be fixed on the petitioner only after

considering the reply and explanation given by the petitioner.

In the present case, the petitioner has not been given such

an opportunity.

4. The Government Pleader entered appearance and

contested the writ petition. The Government Pleader denied

all material allegations made by the petitioner in the writ

petition.

5. It was pointed out by the Government Pleader that

Ext.P1 itself would indicate that a show-cause notice dated

16.09.2020 was issued to the petitioner. Therefore, Ext.P1

cannot be interfered with for violation of the principles of

natural justice or for violation of Rule 24 of the Rules, 2015,

contended the Government Pleader.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader representing the

respondent.

7. The show-cause notice alleged to be issued to the

petitioner is stated to be dated 16.09.2020. The impugned

order and Ext.P1 is passed nearly two years thereafter, on

09.05.2022. The petitioner would assert that he has not

received any prior notice.

8. Going by Rule 24 of the Rules, 2015, it is mandatory

that the petitioner be given a show-cause notice and his reply

is considered.

9. In the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that

the proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1,

without hearing the petitioner would be unjust.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of

directing that Ext.P1 be treated as show-cause notice issued

to the petitioner. The petitioner will be at liberty to submit a

detailed reply/explanation to the allegations contained in

Ext.P1, within a period of two weeks. The respondent shall

take a final decision in the matter after giving an opportunity

of hearing to the petitioner, within a further period of one

month from the date of receipt of reply filed by the petitioner.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE smm/29.06.2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19888/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 09.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER