IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17537 of 2006(K)
1. K.RATNAMANI, W/O. CHANDRAMOHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST,
4. TAHASILDAR,
5. T.P.RAGHAVAN,
For Petitioner :SMT.PRABHA R.MENON
For Respondent :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :20/08/2010
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 17537 of 2006
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 20th day of August, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
In respect of a land in which there is a granite quarry, the
petitioner obtained a quarrying lease for 12 years. Before this
Court, in a batch of writ petitions, a question arose as to whether
owners of properties are liable to pay royalty in respect of the granite
quarried from own properties. That issue was decided by a Full
Bench of this Court in Thressiamma Jacob v. District Office of
Department of Mining and Geology, 2000(2) KLT 162 (F.B)
holding that royalty is payable to the Government. The matter has
been taken to the Supreme Court and appeal filed is pending there.
In the meanwhile, in accordance with the Full Bench decision, the
liability of the petitioner for payment of royalty was fixed as
Rs. 74,280/- by Ext. P1. Subsequently, that was sought to be revised
on the ground that the petitioner has actually quarried a total of
70741cubic metres of granite as against the permitted quantity of
4880 cubic metres. The petitioner challenged that finding in Ext. P5
statutory appeal. Petitioner’s grievance now is that the Government is
refusing to consider that appeal on the ground that the matter is
pending before the Supreme Court. The Government has passed
Exts.P8 and P9 orders to that effect. It is under the above
circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the
following reliefs:
“1) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction to quash Exts.P8 and P9 orders;
2) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the Government to consider and pass
orders on Ext. P5 statutory appeal on merits after hearing the
petitioner;
3) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
W.P.C. No. 17537/2006. -: 2 :-
order or direction to quash Ext. P4 order.”
2. The contention of the petitioner is that even assuming that
the appeal pending before the Supreme Court has any bearing on the
issue involved in Ext. P5 appeal, the pendency of the matter before
the Supreme Court is no ground to deny jurisdiction under Rule 49 of
the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, which gives a right of
appeal to the petitioner.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed to the effect that the
Government cannot consider the appeal while the S.L.P is still
pending.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
5. As far as the appeal filed by the petitioner is concerned, the
question is as to what is the total quantity of granite quarried by the
petitioner. The question as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay
royalty on the same is only a subsidiary issue as far as the appeal is
concerned and therefore I do not think that the 1st respondent can
deny jurisdiction on the ground of pendency of the appeal before the
Supreme Court. In any event, the same does not affect the
Government insofar as as per the Division Bench decision, the
petitioner is liable to pay royalty for the quantity determined in the
appeal. Any person filing an appeal under the Rules has a right to
get the appeal disposed of in accordance with law expeditiously. Ext.
P5 appeal was filed as early as in 2001. I do not think that the 1st
respondent can postpone disposal of the appeal on the ground that the
appeal against the judgment of the Full Bench on the question of
liability to pay royalty is pending before the Supreme Court.
W.P.C. No. 17537/2006. -: 3 :-
In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with
a direction to the 1st respondent to pass final orders on Ext. P5 appeal
filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after
affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Needless to
say, if the petitioner has paid any amount in respect of the subject
matter as per the interim orders or otherwise that shall also be taken
note of by the Government in the matter of deciding the amount
payable by the petitioner.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/