JUDGMENT :

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

1. Instant writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 06.10.2020 in W.P. (C) No. 19573 of 2020, by which, a learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition by observing thus:

“5. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties on either side. As admitted by the petitioner himself, he was issued Ext.P2 notice by the second respondent stating that action is proposed against him under the Rules for having removed granite stones unauthorisedly from the property. The reply sent by the petitioner to Ext.P2 notice, as made available by the learned Government Pleader, indicates that he has denied the allegation that he has removed granite stones from the property, whereas in the writ petition, the petitioner admits that he has removed granite stones from the property twice. According to the petitioner, he has removed granite stones from his property once for the purpose of constructing a retaining wall, and for the purpose of constructing a pond in the property, on another occasion. The petitioner has no case that he has obtained the requisite permit for the said purpose from the competent authority under the Rules. In other words, it is a case where the petitioner admits that he has extracted granite stones unauthorisedly from the property. The contention now raised by the petitioner is only as regards the quantum of the granite stones allegedly removed by him. It is in this context, the petitioner says that he should have been given an opportunity of hearing before the quantum of the granite stones unauthorisedly removed by him was fixed. Insofar as the petitioner has taken the stand in the reply sent to Ext.P2 notice that he has not removed granite stones from the property, the second respondent cannot be blamed for having not given another opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the matter of fixing quantum of granite stones removed by him. In the said view of the matter, according to me, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order-cum-demand notice, the appeal provided for under Rule 98 of the Rules is the remedy available to him.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to challenge Ext.P4 order-cum-demand notice in appeal under Rule 98 of the Rules. It is also directed that if the petitioner prefers an appeal within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered by the Appellate Authority after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within three months thereafter. In the peculiar facts of this case, it is also directed that if the petitioner remits 25% of the demand made in Ext.P4, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 order-cum-demand notice shall be deferred until the disposal of the appeal permitted to be filed in terms of this judgment, if filed by the petitioner.”

2. Facts leading to the filing of instant writ appeal are that writ petitioner/appellant claims to be the owner and in possession of certain items of agricultural land having an extent of one hectare and 21 sq. metres, purchased during 2005. With intent to construct retaining walls, he excavated granite stones from his land during 2010-2011 and 2017-2018 and in order to harvest rainwater, a pond/pit was dug in the property. The pond/pit was constructed in a portion where some granite had already been removed even before the purchase of the land, in 2015.

3. Appellant has further stated that when he started to construct the pond, the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Pala, Kottayam, respondent No. 3, inspected the property and directed him to stop the construction activities. On that basis, he stopped the construction and thereafter, no excavation was carried on. Later, he was served with Exhibit-P2 show-cause notice dated 29.06.2019 by the Geologist, Kottayam, 2nd respondent, calling upon him to show-cause why action should not be taken against him under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concess