High Court Kerala High Court

Anthony vs Geologist on 19 October, 2007

Kerala High Court
Anthony vs Geologist on 19 October, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 29223 of 2007(D)


1. ANTHONY, AGED 65 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. GEOLOGIST,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR)

3. VILLAGE OFFICER,

4. KOTHA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :19/10/2007

 O R D E R
                     ANTONY DOMINIC, J

                             -------------------

                        W.P.(C). 29223/2007

                             --------------------

            Dated this  the  19th day of October, 2007


                             JUDGMENT

The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to

direct the first respondent to issue an assessment order,

if any, to the petitioner and quantify his liability for royalty

with notice to him. Petitioner also seeks to quash Exts.P2

and P3 proceedings for realisation of the royalty from him.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he

was never operating a quarry as now alleged by the

respondents. According to him, he was only a worker in a

quarry operated by the fourth respondent and her

deceased husband. It is also contended that despite this,

he is now proceeded against on the basis that he is liable

to pay the royalty that is payable.

3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions,

submit that the quarry in question was in fact operated by

the petitioner and that is the information they could

gather on an inspection at the site. According to him, it is

on that basis proceedings were initiated against the

petitioner. Learned Government Pleader also submits that

W.P.(C).29223/2007

2

the petitioner has done the quarrying without obtaining

any licence in his name.

4. As a matter of fact, if the petitioner was

running quarry as is now found out by the respondents 1

to 3, he cannot be allowed to escape from the liability.

However petitioner can be made liable only in a

proceedings with notice to him. In any case, I am not

prepared to hold that the petitioner is not liable for any

amount. 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.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC

Judge

mrcs