IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 811 of 2008(V)
1. M.M.MATHEW, AGED 53 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
4. THE GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY
For Petitioner :SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :11/02/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 811 & 1154 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated: February 11, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are sand dealers who are duly licensed by the
4th respondent in terms of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession
Rules. Petitioners submit that on 5.1.2008 as part of a mass raid
that was conducted, their premises were also raised. According to
them the sand which was legitimately collected by them and stored
for sale has been seized and was proposed to be auctioned without
any notice or complying with the other procedural requirements. It
is in the aforesaid context these writ petitions were filed.
2. In WP(C) 1154/08 this court has passed an interim order on
9.1.2008 restraining the respondents from removing the sand which
was already auctioned on 7.1.08 from the stockyard of the
petitioner. In so far as the sand seized from the petitioner in WP(C)
811/08, the proceedings for auction was stayed by order dated
7.1.2008.
WP(C) 811 & 1154/08
Page numbers
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Government
Pleader.
4. Counsel for the writ petitioners now submits that although
in respect of all others similarly situated persons, the respondents
have permitted them to resume business, taking advantage of the
pendency of these writ petitions, the petitioners alone are not
permitted to carry on their business.
5. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that
the premises of the petitioners were raided and that action was
taken in view of the violations of the provisions contained in the
Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules and in particular Rule 48(l)
thereof. According to the learned Government Pleader the
respondents are justified in the action they have taken.
6. As stated by the Government Pleader, if there is a violation
of the provisions of Rule 48(l), the 4th respondent is entitled to take
such action as is permissible in law. However, any such action has
to be expeditiously taken as it would result in depriving the
petitioners legitimate right to carry on their business. Therefore, I
direct that the 4th respondent shall expedite the action that is
WP(C) 811 & 1154/08
Page numbers
proposed to be taken against the petitioners and final orders shall
be passed with notice to the petitioners and without delay in the
matter.
7. The submission of the petitioners that all others against
whom similar action has been taken are permitted to resume
business also needs to be noticed. If what the counsel for the
petitioners submits is factually correct, I am sure that the 4th
respondent will be consistent in his approach in so far as the
petitioners are concerned. Leaving it open to the 4th respondent to
complete the proceedings that are already initiated and reserving
liberty to the petitioners to challenge the same if they are ultimately
aggrieved , I close these writ petitions.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
mt/-