E.K Abdul Salam vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 12440 Ker

Kerala High Court

E.K Abdul Salam vs State Of Kerala on 22 November, 2023

Author: Murali Purushothaman

Bench: Murali Purushothaman

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
        WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 1ST
                       AGRAHAYANA, 1945
                   WP(C) NO. 38387 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

           E.K ABDUL SALAM
           AGED 61 YEARS
           S/O. IBRAHIM, AGED 61 YEARS, KARUKKUNNATHU
           (KALLANKUDY) HOUSE, PERINGALA P.O, ERNAKULAM
           DISTRICT, PIN - 683565
           BY ADV MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1      STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES
           DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
    2      DIRECTOR
           DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
           KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P O,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
    3      GEOLOGIST
           DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY COLLECTORATE,
           KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030
           SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN - SR GP.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WPC 38387/2023
                               ..2..



                         JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging

Ext.P6 Demand Notice issued by the 3 rd respondent whereby

the petitioner was directed to remit an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/-, being five times the royalty as provided under

Rule 14 (5) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015.

It is contended that Ext.P6 Demand Notice has been issued

without hearing the petitioner and in violation of principles of

natural justice.

2. When the Writ Petition came up for admission on

20.11.2023, this Court directed the learned Government

Pleader to get instructions as to whether Ext.P6 order has been

passed after hearing the petitioner. The learned Government

Pleader, on instructions, submits that the petitioner was not

heard before passing Ext.P6.

Since Ext.P6 entails penal as well as civil consequence to

the petitioner, the 3rd respondent ought to have heard the

petitioner before passing Ext.P6. Ext.P6 shall, therefore, be

treated as a Show Cause Notice and the petitioner shall file his

..3..

objection to the same within a period of two weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the

objection, the 3rd respondent shall pass fresh orders after

hearing the petitioner, within a period of one month therefrom.

All contentions of the petitioner in the writ petition are left

open.

Writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE ACR

..4..

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38387/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.

A3/7173/278/16 DATED 07.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE VADAVUKODE-PUTHECRUZ GRAMA PANCHAYATH Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.

A3/7628/235/16 DATED 07.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE VADAVUKODE-PUTHECRUZ GRAMA PANCHAYATH Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.

67/17-18/DOE/651/E2/17 DATED 05.06.2017 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING NO.

DOE/651/E2/2017 DATED 26.07.2023 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.08.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT P4 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING NO.

DOE/651/E2/2017 DATED 03.11.2023