IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21133 of 2009(J)
1. V.V.DEVASSIKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE GEOLOGIST,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.JALEEL
For Respondent :ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :09/10/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 21133 OF 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Heard Sri. K.A.Jaleel, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Sri. Sandesh Raja, the learned Government Pleader
appearing for the first respondent and Smt. Jayasree Manoj, the
learned counsel appearing for the additional second respondent.
2. The petitioner is a manufacturer of bricks. He applied for a
dealers licence under Rule 48A of the Kerala Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, to stock brick clay for the purpose of
manufacturing bricks. That application was rejected by the first
respondent Geologist by Ext.P2 order dated 8.7.2009 relying on the
earlier judgments of this Court between the parties. The petitioner
contends that the rejection of his application for a dealers licence is
arbitrary and illegal.
3. Rule 49 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules
confers on the petitioner the right to file an appeal and a second
appeal before the appellate and final appellate authority. Under
proviso to sub rule (b) of Rule 49A, the appellate authority is also
W.P.(C) No. 21133/09
2
empowered to condone the delay in filing the appeal if sufficient
cause is shown. The Government have by notification dated
16.11.1978 designated the appellate authority and the second
appellate authority. Therefore the petitioner has an effective and
meaningful remedy. A Division Bench of this Court has in Biju
Chacko & Others v. The Dy. Director, Mining & Geology (2006 (1)
KLJ 401) held (though in connection with an application for a
quarrying permit) that as Rule 49 entitles persons applying for
quarrying permits to file an appeal and a second appeal, there is no
justification to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India at the threshold. In my opinion as the rules
enable the petitioner to file an appeal and a second appeal, the
petitioner has to invoke the said remedy.
I accordingly dismiss this writ petition with the observation that
if the petitioner files an appeal challenging Ext.P12 order before the
competent appellate authority within two weeks from the date on
which he receives a certified copy of this judgment, the appellate
authority shall entertain the same as the one filed within time and
pass orders thereon expeditiously and in any event within three
W.P.(C) No. 21133/09
3
months from the date on which such an appeal is filed and after
affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Needless to say, the appellate authority shall while considering the
appeal, issue notice to and hear the second respondent and the local
authority concerned.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
vps