M.Thapasi vs The State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 14745 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 14745 Ker
Judgement Date : 4 June, 2024

Kerala High Court

M.Thapasi vs The State Of Kerala on 4 June, 2024

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
     TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2024/14TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO.20007 OF 2024


PETITIONER:

          M.THAPASI, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O.MUTHUSWAMY NADAR,
          SAVIN BHAVAN, ANAPPARA, KUDAPPANAKODU P.O.,
          VELLARADA, PIN - 695505.

          BY ADV. SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
          INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
          GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.

    2     THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
          INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
          GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.

    3     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          COLLECTORATE, 2ND FLOOR,
          CIVIL STATION BUILDING,
          CIVIL STATION ROAD, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043.

    4     THE GEOLOGIST,
          DISTRICT OFFICE, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,
          KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004.

    5     THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
          OFFICE OF THE RDO, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043.

    6     THE TAHSILDAR,
          TALUK OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA,
          NEAR REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICE, ALUMMOODU,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695121.
 W.P(C) No.20007 of 2024
                                 - 2 -



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   04.06.2024,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C) No.20007 of 2024
                                - 3 -

                            JUDGMENT

Dated, this the 04th day of June, 2024

Petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by

Ext.P12 order passed by the 2nd respondent/appellate

authority in Ext.P9 appeal preferred by the

petitioner, as against Ext.P6 demand notice.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Government Pleader on behalf of all the

respondents.

3. Vide Ext.P6, the petitioner is alleged to have

indulged in illegal mining in respect of puramboke

land, which is comprised in Survey No.505/1 of

Vellarada village (Block No.34) to the extent of

17,080 MT. Ext.P6 calls upon the petitioner to pay a

total sum of Rs.12,54,760/-, which includes royalty,

compounding fee, etc.

4. Challenging Ext.P6, the petitioner preferred

Ext.P9, essentially contending that the petitioner

- 4 -

has been issued with necessary permit to conduct

mining activities in respect of properties comprised

in Sy.Nos.506/4-1, 506/4-2, 506/4-3, 506/2 and

506/11 of Block No.34 of Vellarada village, under

and by virtue of the mining permits specifically

mentioned in paragraph no.1 of the appeal. It is the

specific case of the petitioner that he has not

conducted any mining, except in respect of the above

referred lands and that no mining, whatsoever, is

conducted by him in the puramboke land, as alleged

in Ext.P6. The petitioner also canvassed a

contention that the alleged mining in respect of the

puramboke land took place a year before the

petitioner was granted permit. Yet another contention

raised is that the petitioner's property, where he was

permitted to conduct mining as per the permit, is

located away from the alleged puramboke land.

5. When Ext.P9 appeal was not considered by the 2nd

respondent/appellate authority, the petitioner

approached this Court, which culminated in judgment

- 5 -

in W.P.(C) No.39750/2023 directing the 2nd respondent

to consider and pass orders in Ext.P9 appeal within

the time specified therein. It is accordingly that

Ext.P12 order has been passed by the 2nd respondent/

appellate authority, dismissing Ext.P9 appeal. The

ground urged in this Writ Petition is to the effect

that none of the contentions, specifically canvassed

by the petitioner in Ext.P9, has been addressed in

Ext.P12 order. Learned counsel would point out that,

up to paragraph no.7, the order merely records the

contentions of the parties. In paragraph no.7, which

contains the operative portion, the order merely

refers to Ext.P6 and states that there is no merit

in the appeal, a self serving statement, without

referring to any of the contentions or facts, which

are raised in Ext.P9 appeal.

6. Having heard the learned counsel and perusing

Ext.P12 order, this Court can only endorse the

petitioner's contentions. No reason, whatsoever, is

seen stated in Ext.P12 to confirm Ext.P6 demand

- 6 -

notice. The specific contention of the petitioner

that he had not indulged in any quarrying activity

in the puramboke land, is not seen addressed. No

material is seen relied upon by the appellate

authority to arrive at a conclusion that it was the

petitioner, who allegedly conducted mining in the

puramboke land.

7. The course adopted by the 2nd respondent vide

Ext.P2 can hardly be sustained. The causal manner,

in which appeals are being handled by the statutory

authorities, is a matter of serious concern and the

same results in multiplicity of writ petitions being

filed in this Court. The 2nd respondent/appellate

authority did not feel it necessary, atleast to

address the very ground raised in Ext.P9 appeal and

pass appropriate orders thereon. It is saddening to

note that in an order, which runs to nine pages, the

appellate authority had not felt the necessity to

devote some time and attention to the grounds raised

in Ext.P9 appeal.

- 7 -

8. Ext.P12 cannot be sustained in law and the same

is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to

the appellate authority, with a direction to dispose

of Ext.P9 appeal on merits and in accordance with

law. It is specifically directed that the

contentions raised in Ext.P9 shall be addressed and

answered by the 2nd respondent. The above exercise

shall be done within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Any

non-compliance, especially in the matter of the

direction to dispose of the appeal on merits, will

be viewed seriously.

This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE ww

- 8 -

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14-06-2018 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT VIDE NO.B1- 49556/2015.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 04-06-2020.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 02-04-2022 REJECTING EXHIBIT P-2 APPEAL.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18-07- 2022 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TAHSILDAR, NEYYATTINKARA TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 18-10-2022 VIDE NO.G4/49556.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 16-10-2019 BY THE GEOLOGIST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 25-01-2020 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE NO.3207/DOT/ML/2015.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR RECOVERY IN FORM 25 DATED 28-12-2021 VIDE RRC NO.2020/3783/01.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF FIRST APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04-03-2022.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 21- 03-2022 FROM THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GEOLOGIST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM VIDE NO.47/A4/2022/INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT.