Individuals should be afforded a fair hearing on charges impacting their rights before any coercive actions are taken by authorities.

J U D G M E N T

The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:

The petitioner is having title and possession of 1 Acre, 35cents of land in Re.Svy No:329/2 of Irimbiliyam Village, Tirur Taluk, Malapuram district. The land in question is a terraced and uneven land and on the side of a steep hill. The petitioner obtained the property by virtue of Partition deed No: 3498/2012 of SRO Kuttipuram dated 28.7.2012. With the intention to cultivate the property he had dug out earth and leveled the property for the purpose of cultivation and putting up a small residential house. It is stated that there is laterite stone deposit in the property and the same was excavated long prior to the petitioner getting absolute possession of the property. Much to his surprise the petitioner was served with Ext. P1 show cause notice on 30-12-2019 by the 3rd respondent alleging that the petitioner is undertaking illegal laterite quarrying in the property. He was called upon to serve show-cause before the 3rd Respondent, as to why proceedings need not be initiated against him under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules , 2015. On receipt of the said notice the petitioner gave a detailed reply on 10-01-2020 contending that he had not undertaken any laterite quarrying since he has come into absolute possession of the property. The activity done by him is only preparation for agriculture activities, it is averred. The petitioner was expecting a personal hearing by the 3rd respondent. Much to his surprise he was served with Exhibit P2 Demand Notice from the office of the 3rd respondent holding that he is liable to pay a total sum of Rs 8,89,000/- as penalty. The appellant is not served with any final order determining the liability instead he was only served with a demand notice as mentioned above. It is stated that the action of the respondent is illegal. The extent of excavation as alleged in the demand notice is baseless and is not calculated scientifically, hence is incorrect. It is also pertinent to point out that the mining as alleged by the respondent if any was carried out long back and therefore is hit by limitation. The appellant is treating the demand notice as the final order of the respondent. Treating the demand notice as an order, the petitioner preferred Exhibit P3 appeal before the 1st respondent. The petitioner apprehends that the 3rd respondent will initiate steps against the petitioner for realizing the amount raised in Ext.P2 demand notice by invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. If he does so the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and damage and the appeal preferred by the petitioner will also become infructuous.

It is in the light of these factual averments that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:

“1. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate orderable direction directing the first respondent to dispose Ext. P3 appeal affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

2. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order directing quashing Ext. P1 show cause notice and Ext. P2 demand notice issued by the 3rd respondent.

3. Issue such other appropriate writs, orders or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Sri.P.A.Harish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.J.Manu Raj, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. Ext.P-2 demand notice dated 15.6.2020 has now been issued by the 3rd respondent-District Geologist calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.8,89,000/- towards royalty and penalty in pursuance of finalisation of Ext.P-1 show cause notice issued by the 3rd respondent alleging that petitioner had undertaken illegal quarrying in his property. Being aggrieved by Ext.P-2 demand notice dated 15.6.2020 the petitioner has now filed Ext.P-3 statutory appeal dated 30.6.2020 before the competent authority of the 1st respondent-State Government, who is