IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946 CON.CASE(C) NO. 192 OF 2022 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.28365 OF 2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER/ 5 t h PETITIONER:

DILEEP KUMAR T.C.

AGED 45 YEARS S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, KUDUKKEN HOUSE, PERITHATTA AMSOM AND DESOM, PERINTHATTA NORTH, P.O.ARAVANCHAL, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 353.

BY ADVS. V.HARISH RAJAN VISHNURAJ RESPONDENTS/1ST RESPONDENT:

1 MOHAMMED HANISH (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

ADDL.R2 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF KANNUR.

*ADDL R2 IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU VIDE ORDER DATED

19.10.2023 IN COC 192/22 ADDL.R3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF (RURAL), KANNUR, NEAR KERALA ARMED POLICE IV BATTALION, DHARMASALA, KANNUR, KERALA -670 567.

**ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 01.02.2024 IN IA

1/24 IN COC 192/22.

BY ADVS.

ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, (ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL)

T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH, (GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2024 Petitioner herein is the petitioner in W.P(C)No.28365/2021. The instant contempt is initiated alleging willful disobedience of the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 10.12.2021, in the above referred Writ Petition. The operative portion of the said order is extracted herebelow:

“There will be an interim direction to the 1^st respondent to take up Ext.P12 representation preferred by the petitioners and to consider and pass appropriate orders on the same and issue necessary directions after hearing them through any appropriate means including video conferencing within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

2. It is not in dispute that, at the time when the contempt was initiated, no orders were passed by the 1^st respondent in compliance of the above referred direction. However, when the contempt case was pending, the 1^st respondent issued G.O. (Rt)No.179/2022/ID dated 01.03.2022, after consideration of Ext.P12 representation. The operative portion of the said order is also extracted herebelow.

“7.Government have examined the case in detail on the basis of the report submitted by Director, Mining & Geology Department, District Collector, Kannur, Geologist, Kannur and arguments put forth by the Counsel of the petitioner. Some practical difficulties are mentioned in the report of the Mining & Geology Director, on the proper implementation of Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 to seize the illegally extracted minerals. Accordingly orders are issued by authorizing Mining & Geology Director to furnish a proposal containing the following facts, within a period of one month without fail, for resolving the issues & allegations raised against the illegal laterite (building stone) mining.

1. A proposal to constitute an inter departmental official team comprising officials from Mining & Geology department, Police Department and Revenue Department, for conducting regular inspections in the field to prevent illegal mining of laterite stones at the source and its transportation.

2. list out the practical difficulties being faced on the proper implementation of Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and remedies thereof. 3. specific remarks on filing complaint before police in cases of illegal mining, enabling the Geologists to register FIR under

379 of IPC.

8. The orders of the Hon'ble High Court vide its interim order read as 2nd paper above is complied with accordingly.”

3. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the G.O. above referred dated 01.03.2022, does not amount to compliance of th