High Court Kerala High Court

Anthony vs Geologist on 4 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
Anthony vs Geologist on 4 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29975 of 2008(R)


1. ANTHONY, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.DEVASSY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT
                       ...       Respondent

2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK

3. VILLAGE OFFICER, KODASSERY VILLAGE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :04/12/2008

 O R D E R
                        K. M. JOSEPH, J.
                 --------------------------------------
                 W.P.C. NO. 29975 OF 2008 R
                 --------------------------------------
                Dated this the 4th December, 2008

                           JUDGMENT

Prayer in the Writ Petition is as follows:

“Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus

commanding respondents 1 to 3 to consider and pass

orders on Ext.P6 within such time as may be fixed by

this Honourable Court and until then stay all further

proceedings pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3.”

2. Petitioner had approached this Court earlier and

obtained Ext.P5 Judgment. Therein, this Court held as follows:

“If, according to the petitioner, there has not

been any quantification as now contended by him, it

is open to the petitioner to approach the respondents

1 to 3 with a representation in that behalf, in which

event, they shall consider the same and pass

appropriate orders.”

3. According to petitioner, petitioner filed Ext.P6

representation. The first respondent filed a Statement and

produced Exts.R1(a) to R1(d). Under Ext.R1(c), according to

WPC.29975/08 R 2

the learned Government Pleader, there has been a quantification

of the liability. It is this amount which is demanded under

Exts.P2 and P3. In fact, there is no challenge to Exts.P2 and P3

as such in this Writ Petition. There is no challenge to Ext.R1(c)

either. There is no reference to Ext.R1(c) in this Writ Petition.

The Writ Petition is clearly liable to be dismissed with costs of

Rs.2,000/=. Then the learned counsel for petitioner prayed for

some time to pay off the amount. He pleaded that the petitioner

is only a labourer. While dismissing the Writ Petition with costs

of Rs.2,000/= (Rupees Two Thousand), it is only ordered that

the proceedings against the petitioner will be kept in abeyance

for a period of six weeks from today to enable the petitioner to

pay off the entire amount due. Needless to say, any further

illegal quarrying which may be indulged by the petitioner, can

be made the subject matter of appropriate proceedings in

accordance with law. Sd/=

kbk. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
// True Copy //
PS to Judge