The court emphasized the discretionary and equitable nature of the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, and the duty to balance interests and equities while exercising such jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

1. Petitioner is a company running a granite quarry at Payyanamon. As per Ext.P1 notice, the third respondent has called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 5,68,38,560/- towards price, royalty and other dues in respect of the granite stones quarried by the petitioner unauthorisedly beyond the limits of the land over which they secured the quarrying lease. Ext.P1 notice was issued invoking the power under Rule 58(2) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 (the Rules). Ext.P1 notice was challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the Government, and the Government set aside the same holding, among others, that the third respondent was not empowered to exercise the power under Rule 58(2) of the Rules. Ext.P2 is the order passed by the Government in this regard. In Ext.P2 order, it was, however, clarified that the said order will not preclude the Director of the Department of Mining and Geology (the Director) from initiating fresh proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 58(2) of the Rules in respect of the same subject matter. In the light of the said clarification, the Director issued a notice on 4.1.2002 calling upon the petitioner to pay the very same amount demanded in terms of Ext.P1 notice in respect of the granite stones quarried by the petitioner unauthorisedly. Later, on 29.7.2002, the Government recalled Ext.P2 order to the extent it granted liberty to the Director to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner. Ext.P3 is the order issued by the Government in this regard. Later, on 14.01.2003, in exercise of the power under Rule 62 of the Rules, the Government authorised the Director to exercise the power under Rule 58(2) of the Rules. In the meanwhile, the petitioner challenged the notice dated 4.1.2002 before this Court in O.P. No. 4734 of 2002. In the light of Ext.P3 order, this Court set aside the notice dated 4.1.2002, as per Ext.P4 judgment. After the disposal of O.P. No. 4734 of 2002, the Director initiated proceedings afresh against the petitioner under Rule 58(2) of the Rules and issued Ext.P6 notice on 24.3.2012, calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 5,68,58,560/- towards price, royalty and other dues in respect of the granite stones unauthorisedly extracted by the petitioner referred to in Ext.P1 notice. The petitioner challenged Ext.P6 notice and the order affirming the same in appeal by the Government before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 25012 of 2013 and the said writ petition was dismissed as per Ext.P8 judgment. In the meanwhile, at the instance of the third respondent, proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the amounts due. Ext.P7 is the demand notice issued in this regard by the fourth respondent. The petitioner though raised objections to Ext.P7 demand notice, the same have been turned down by the fourth respondent in terms of Ext.P11 order. Ext.P7 demand notice and Ext.P11 order are under challenge in the writ petition. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that what is sought to be recovered from them as per Ext.P7 demand notice is the amount covered by Ext.P1 notice with interest from the date of the said notice and since the said notice has been set aside by the Government in appeal, Ext.P7 demand notice is unsustainable in law.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State in the matter contending, among others, that the liability to pay price, royalty and other dues in respect of mineral wealth of the State arises when the minerals are removed from the mother earth, and since the price, royalty and other dues in respect of the minerals extracted by the petitioner unauthorisedly have not been paid by them, they are liable to pay the same with interest from the date of its extraction.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Special Government Pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the only notice is