IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7609 of 2009(U)
1. HASEEN.A. SALAM, AGED 34 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. NAZEERA BEEVI.M, AGED 57 YEARS,
3. HAREEF A. SALAM, AGED 32 YEARS,
4. HADIF.A. SALAM, AGED 30 YEARS,
5. SHEEJA HASEEN, AGED 30 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. GEOLOGIST,
3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),
4. VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAKKAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :26/03/2009
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 7609 OF 2009 U
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th March, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are the legal representatives of one late Haji
E.M. Abdul Salam. It is stated that he was the Chairman of a
Trust and it started a College and it decided to construct a pond
in the campus for providing drinking water and to use the
assorted sand for plastering the college building. It is stated that
the request was originally given to the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kollam who granted sanction for digging a pond. But,
the RDO did not grant sanction to use the sand for plastering the
college building. It is further stated that the sand was collected
near the pond itself. Now the petitioners challenge Exts.P5 to
P14.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Government Pleader. It is pointed out by the learned
Government Pleader that there was a proceeding and after
WPC.7609/09 U 2
issuing notice to the predecessor in interest of the petitioners,
orders were issued, but they were returned back noting the death
of the predecessor in interest. Today, the learned Government
Pleader handed over a copy of the decision to the learned
counsel for the petitioners. Learned Government Pleader points
out that it is open to the petitioners to approach the Appellate
Authority under Rule 49 of the Kerala Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 1967. To the argument of the counsel for the
petitioners that the very proceeding by the Geologist is without
jurisdiction and it is only the State Government which can fix
and recover the amount. It is pointed out that there is delegation
apparently under Rule 62. Of course, counsel for petitioners
disputes this. I feel that the petitioners can be relegated to prefer
Appeal if they are otherwise competent to challenge the order, a
copy of which has been served on the counsel for the petitioners
today. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioners, if so
advised, to approach the Authority under Rule 49 of the Kerala
WPC.7609/09 U 3
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the Writ Petition is disposed
of. The impugned proceedings will be kept in abeyance for a
period of three weeks from today.
Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE
kbk. // True Copy //
PS to Judge