Kerala High Court
Viany Enterprises Private Limited vs The District Geologist on 27 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 12413 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 VIANY ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED
AGED 63 YEARS
PANNIVELIL BUILDINGS, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
LAMBOCHAN MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, PANNIVELIL HOUSE,
KADUTHURUTHY P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT-, PIN - 686604
2 LAMBOCHAN MATHEW
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.MATHEW, PANNIVELIL HOUSE, KADUTHURUTHY P.O.,
VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686604
BY ADVS.
P.M.ZIRAJ
IRFAN ZIRAJ
ABHIJITH P.A.
NAGY P.L.
RAHUL SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENT:
THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST
DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT., PIN - 686002
OTHER PRESENT:
GP - AJITH VISWANATHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). No.12413 of 2024 :2:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
W.P.(C) No.12413 of 2024
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a
direction to the respondent to finalise the proceedings on the basis
of Ext.P3 show cause after considering Ext.P4 reply and after
affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
2. It is averred that the 1st petitioner is the owner in
possession of certain extent of property as per Exts.P1 and P2 sale
deeds. When the petitioners attempted to level the property, they
were issued with Ext.P3 notice intimating that during inspection of
the property on the request of the petitioners it was noticed that
ordinary earth has been removed from some portion of the
property on earlier occasions and the petitioners were directed to
produce the copy of permits for earth cutting. The 2 nd petitioner
submitted Ext.P4 reply, which was duly received by the respondent
as is evident from Ext.P6 acknowledgment card. The petitioners
submit that the proceedings have not been finalised yet.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.
After hearing both sides I am inclined to dispose of the writ
petition with a direction to the respondent to finalise the
proceedings on the basis of Ext.P3 show cause after considering
Ext.P4 reply and after affording an opportunity of being heard to
the petitioners, within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sm/
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12413/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED OF THE FIRST
PETITIONER NO.913 OF 2011 OF
THALAYOLAPARAMBU SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE
DATED 19.04.2021
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED OF THE FIRST
PETITIONER NO.755 OF 2011 OF
THALAYOLAPARAMB SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE DATED
20.03.2011
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 13.12.2023
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE
NOTICE SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER
DATED 3.1.2024 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED
4.1.2024 TOWARDS PROOF OF SERVICE OF
EXHIBIT P4
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD
DATED 5.1.2024
