SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5744

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. SOUMEN SEN, CJ, MR. SYAM KUMAR V.M., J
JOY JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 28849 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Smt. Daisy A. Philipose
For the Respondents: Mr. Philip J. Vettickattu, Mr. V. Tekchand

The court confirmed the necessity for expediting penalty proceedings under relevant mining regulations.

Headnote:The Court addressed the issues surrounding penalties under Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, considering ongoing proceedings initiated by authorities. The findings determined that the State must expedite penalty proceedings. The main legal issue framed was the realisation of established penalties as per law. The Court concluded that no further orders were necessary apart from expediting the process.

Table of Content
1. proceedings initiation and legal representation. (Para 1)
2. expediency of penalty proceedings under mining regulations. (Para 2)

Heard Ms. Daisy A. Philipose, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Philip J. Vettickattu, learned counsel for the 7th respondent, and Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader.

2. In view of the fact that proceedings have already been initiated by the authorities concerned for realisation of penalties under Section 21 (5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act , 1957 read with Rule 108 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules , 2015, we are not inclined to pass any further orders, save and except that the State shall complete the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, and in the event it is found that there is contravention of any other provisions, take immediate steps for realisation of the penalties, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from date. The final decision shall be communicated to the writ petitioner.

3. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top