S. Manikumar, C.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 Concession Rules, 2015.4. Pursuant to the above said notice, appellant submitted a reply dated 30.09.2019 before the 2nd respondent stating that even prior to the date of purchase, certain quantities of granite had been removed from the property. It was specifically stated therein that no quantity of earth or rock was removed from the property.5. Appellant has further stated that after about a year, he was issued with Exhibit-P3 notice by the 2nd respondent informing that an inspection was proposed to be conducted in his property on 30.07.2020. After inspection, he was issued with Exhibit-P4 order-cum-demand notice by the 2nd respondent calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs.17,10,720/- towards royalty for the granite stones unauthorised removed by him and Rs.34,21,440/- towards the price of the said granite stones. He was also called upon to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- by way of fine.6. Appellant has further stated that in Exhibit-P4 demand notice dated 18.08.2020, it was observed during inspection of the property pursuant to Exhibit-P3 notice that he has removed 71,280 metric tons of granite stones from his property unauthorisedly. He has claimed that the extraction is specifically for agricultural purposes. Though he approached the concerned authorities for details of the report, prepared at the time of joint inspection, and tried to convince the 2nd respondent about the activities undertaken, he was not furnished with any details. Hence, an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 (Exhibit-P5) was sent to the office of the 2nd respondent, for obtaining the relevant records and further details as to the fixation of the amount, for which there was no response. His specific contention was that any activities carried out, in connection with agriculture, do not require sanction, nor is a mining activity, coming under the purview of the mining laws.7. In the above circumstances, the appellant has filed W.P.(C) No.19573 of 2020 for the following reliefs:a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, calling for the records leading to Exhibit-P4 notice and quash the same;b) Issue a declaration that the petitioner is not required to obtain any environmental clearance or any further licence or permit from the department of Mining and Geology, for conducting agricultural operations in the subject land.c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 2nd respondent to issue the details and documents sought for in Exhibit-P5 and to finalise the issue in dispute after granting him sufficient opportunity for hearing.8. After considering the submissions advanced, writ court, by the impugned judgment, as extracted above, disposed of the writ petition directing the appellant to avail the statutory remedy, within two weeks from the date of the judgment and to remit 25% of the demanded amounts for deferring recovery proceedings. Being aggrieved, instant writ appeal is filed on the following grounds.A. The specific case of the appellant was that a major portion of the quantity extracted from the subject properties were for agricultural purposes and hence, not covered by the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Kerala Minor Mineral Construction Rules, 2015. Except the quantities recently extracted for facilitating harvesting of rainwater are to be dealt with under 1967 Rules and not under the 2015 Rules.B. Appellant has the right to get exemption for the quantities extracted for agricultural purposes and is not liable for the quantities extracted before 2005. The respondent authorities failed to ascertain the quantities utilized for agricultural activities for which the appellant's claim is sustainable.C. The quantification relied on in Exhibit P4 demand notice is not with notice to the appellant nor the reports of measurements were served on him. The 2nd respondent had not entered into any finding in Exhibit P4 as to the extent of violation committed by the appellant.D. The 2nd respondent had once visited the property and the same was for quantifying the alleged extent of extraction. The 2nd respondent simply relied on the report of the 3rd respondent and proceeded against the appellant under the pretext that the entire extraction was conducted for commercial activities.E. Appellant was not given an opportunity of hearing on the allegation of illegal extraction of granite stones nor his reply was properly taken note of by the 2nd respondent. Appellant ought to have been given an opportunity to place his objections and the actual facts before the 2nd respondent, before proceeding to penalize him. The factual facts were not taken note of and the reports leading to quantification were not served on the appellant. Thus, there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned proceedings initiated against him curtails his right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.F. Though the order similar to Exhibit-P4 notice is appealable, the same is issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and exceeding the powers conferred on the 2nd respondent. Hence, this Court has jurisdiction to interfere in the matter and the demand in Exhibit-P4 notice. The third relief sought for in the Writ Petition was also not granted by the learned single Judge.G. Learned single Judge directed remittance of 25% of the demand amount for deferring the recovery proceedings. The appellant even if delegated to avail the alternate remedy, is entitled to move the appellate authority for deferring the recovery proceedings, but now, as the learned single Judge has specifically directed remittance of 25%, he was prevented from claiming stay of Exhibit P4 before the Appellate Authority.9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.10. Exhibit-P2 show cause notice dated 29.06.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent is extracted hereunder:“No.1033/DOY/ML/2019Mining Geology DepartmentDistrict Office, Kottayam-686002E-mail: go.kot.dmg@kerala.gov.inPhone..................Show Cause NoticeSub :- Mines & Minerals – Minor Mineral – Illegal rock mining seeking explanation reg.Ref:- 1) Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 19572) Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 20153) Kerala Minor Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage & Transportation) Rules, 2015.4) B5-3606-19 dated 26.03.2019 letter by Tahsildar, MeenachilThe Tahsildar, Meenachil had reported that you had illegally extracted and transported granite stones from the lands comprised in Block 80, Resurvey 77/12-2 of Lalam Village in Meenachil Taluk. Illegal removal of minerals is an offence and punishable under reference 1, 2 & 3 Acts and Rules. If you have any genuine reason not to proceed against you for the above, it shall be submitted personally and in writing within seven days of receipt of this notice. It is informed that if you fail to do so, further proceedings will be initiated presuming that you have nothing to submit in the matter.Senior Geologist (in-charge)Sri. K.T. ThomasKizhakkayil HouseKizhathadiyoor.”11. Exhibit-P3 notice dated 14.07.2020 issued from the office of the 2nd respondent is extracted hereunder:“No.1033/DOY/ML/2019Mining Geology DepartmentDistrict Office, Kottayam-686002E-mail: go.kot.dmg@kerala.gov.inPhone..................FromGeologistToSri. K.T. Thomas,Kizhakkayil HouseMundankal P.O., PalaSir,Sub :- Illegal extraction of granite stone – conduct of joint inspection – reg.Ref:- 1) Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 20152) Letter No. B5-3606/19 dated 26.03.2019 of Tahsildar, Meenachil.The Tahsildar, Meenachil had reported that you had illegally extracted and transported granite stones from the lands comprised in Block 80, Resurvey 77/12-2 of Lalam Village in Meenachil Taluk. In the above circumstances, it is decided to conduct a joint inspection on 30.07.2020 at 12 noon. You are requested to be present at the site with relevant documents.Yours sincerelySd/-14.07Geologist”12. Exhibit-P4 demand notice dated 18.08.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent is extracted hereunder:“No.1033/DOY/ML/2019Mining Geology DepartmentDistrict Office, Kottayam-686002E-mail: go.kot.dmg@kerala.gov.inPhone..................Date: 18.08.2019(actually 2020)Demand NoticeSub:- Mines & Minerals – Minor Mineral – Illegal rock mining issuance of demand notice – reg.Ref:- 1) Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 19572) Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 20153) Kerala Minor Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage & Transportation), Rules, 20154) B5-3606-19 dated 26.03.2019 letter by Tahsildar, Meenachil.5) Show Cause Notice dated 25.06.2019.6) Your reply dated 30.09.20197) Joint inspection dated 14.07.2020The Tahsildar, Meenachil had reported as per reference 4 that you had illegally extracted and transported granite stones from the lands comprised in Block 80, Resurvey 77/12-2 of Lalam Village in Meenachil Taluk. Illegal removal of mineral is an offence and punishable under reference 1, 2 & 3 Acts and Rules. Against the above, you were directed to show cause if there is any genuine reason not to proceed against you. In view of your reply as reference 6, reference 7 site inspection was conducted and is convinced that you had illegally extracted and removed 28512 meter cube (71280 metric tonne) from the property. For the granites so removed above, having an quantity of 71280 metric tonne a royalty of Rs. 17,10,720/- cost of 3421440 and fine of Rs. 25,000/- in total Rs. 5157160 (Rupees fifty one lakhs fifty seven thousand one hundred sixty only) is directed to be paid in person before this office within 10 days of receipt of this notice. Otherwise, further proceedings for revenue recovery will be initiated.Sd/-18.08Geologist”Sri. K.T. Thomas,Kizhakkayil HouseMundankal P.O., Pala”13. Exhibit-P5 is the application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 15.09.2020 submitted by the appellant. It reads thus:“From 15.09.2020Sri. K.T. Thomas,Kizhakkayil HouseMundankal P.O.,PalaToThe Public Information OfficerMining & Geology DepartmentDistrict Office, Kottayam.Sub:- For obtaining documents as per Right to Information Act-regRef:- No. 1033/DOY/ML/2019 Demand NoticeCertified copy of the documents mentioned below produced the proceedings before your office relating to reference notice may be issued under the RTI Act.Rs.10/- worth Court fee stamp affixed for petition fee.Document fees will be paid as and when directed.Documents to be issued.1. B5/3606 Letter dated 26.03.2019 by Tahsildar, Meenachil2. My reply dated 30.09.20193. Joint Inspection report dated 14.07.20204. Information as to how the quantity referred in demand notice No.1033/DOY/ML-2019 dated 18.08.2020 was arrived at.5. Whether the details mentioned in paragraph 4 were furnished to land owner K. T. Thomas before issuing demand notice dated 18.08.2020 and if issued when was issued and receipt of the same.Sd/-ApplicantK.T. Thomas”14. Reply submitted by the petitioner on 30.09.2019 in response to the notice issued by the Geologist, Kottayam reads thus:FromSri. K.T. Thomas,Kizhakkayil HouseMundankal P.O., PalaToThe Geologist,Kottayam.Sir,Ref. No.1033/DOY/ML/2019When I purchased property in Survey No. 77/12-2 in 2005, there was a pit for holding water in the property. When the above pit has been cleaned with motor and machines before six months, Tahsildar, Pala inspected the site. Later, I got a letter.I haven't removed earth or rock outside the properties.Sd/-K.T. ThomasKizhakkayilMundankal”15. Material on record discloses that though Exhibit-P2 notice dated 29.06.2019 was issued by the Geologist, Kottayam, respondent No.2, calling for explanation as to why, action should not be taken against the appellant for illegal removal of mineral, in the reply dated 30.09.2019, appellant has only stated that when he purchased the property in 2005, there was a pit for holding water in the property. When the above pit was cleaned, the Tahsildar inspected the site. Nowhere in the reply, the appellant has stated that the subject property was quarried earlier by the erstwhile owner or the predecessor-in-interest, as the case may be, whereas, in the writ petition, the appellant has projected a case as if the property was subjected to quarrying.16. Admittedly, Exhibit-P3 notice dated 14.07.2020 has been issued by the Geologist, Kottayam, fixing inspection of the property on 30.07.2020, After joint inspection, it has been found that the appellant has excavated huge quantity of granite of 71280 metric tonnes, without permission and thus, Exhibit-P4 demand notice dated 18.08.2020 has been issued demanding the appellant to pay royalty and fine.17. From the above, it could be deduced that there is prima facie material for issuance of Exhibit-P4 demand notice. Though, as against the demand notice, the appellant has an alternative remedy, under Rule 98 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, he has chosen to file W.P.(C) No. 19573 of 2020 for the relief stated supra.18. As regards the contention that appellant was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before fixing the quantum, no provision has been pointed out by him in the rules, which provide an opportunity of hearing. On the said aspect, writ court, while relegating the appellant to file an appeal under Rule 98 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, has observed that the Geologist, Kottayam, respondent No.2, cannot be blamed for not giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing in the matter of fixing the quantum. Though the appellant, in the writ petition, as well as in the grounds, has contended that the respondents have failed to ascertain the quantity utilised for agricultural activities and simply relied on the inspection report, material on record shows that in the reply dated 30.09.2019, it was not the case of the appellant that he had excavated granite for any agricultural activity. He has only stated that when he purchased the property, in 2005, there was a pit. When he has cleaned up the pit, the Tahsildar inspected the site. Thus, it is evident that for the first time, before the Court, in the writ petition, as well as in the grounds, the appellant is projecting a new case.19. Chapter X of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, deals with appeal and review. Rule 98 of the rules which speaks about form of appeal, reads thus:“98. Form of appeal.—(1) (a) Any person aggrieved by any order made by the competent authority or authorised officer, as the case may be, under these rules, may, within two months from the date of communication of the order to him, prefer an appeal in Form O to the Appellate Authority appointed by the Government in this behalf by notification in the Gazette.(b) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Appellate Authority under Clause (a) may, within one month from the date of communication of such order to him, prefer a second appeal in Form O to the final Appellate Authority appointed by Government in this behalf by notification in the Gazette:Provided that any such appeal, under Clause (a) or Clause (b), may be entertained after the period specified therein if the appellant satisfies the Appellate Authority or Final Appellate Authority, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time.(c) Every appeal memorandum, under Clause (a) and Clause (b) shall be accompanied by the treasury receipt showing that a fee of five hundred rupees has been remitted in the Government Treasury to the credit of the Government under the remittance Head of the Department of Mining and Geology.(2) In every appeal memorandum, under sub-rule (1) the authority against whose order the appeal is preferred shall be impleaded as a party;(3) Along with the appeal memorandum under sub-rule (1) the appellant shall submit as many copies thereof as there are parties impleaded under sub-rule (2);(4) On receipt of the appeal memorandum and the copies thereof the Appellate Authority or the Final Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shall send a copy of the appeal memorandum to each of the parties impleaded under sub-rule (2) specifying a date on or before which he may make his representation if any, against the appeal.”20. When the appellant is not able to substantiate his case on the failure to provide opportunity of hearing before fixing the quantum, by placing reference to any statutory provision, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right nor be a ground to quash a demand notice, pursuant to an inspection, and prima facie finding of illegal removal of granite and that too, a huge quantity of granite of 71280 metric tonnes. That apart, a cursory look at the statutory rules, provide an opportunity of hearing only in certain circumstances. In this context, let us consider the statutory provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015.21. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Central Act 67 of 1957), the Government of Kerala have framed the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, in supersession of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 issued under Notification No.15203/E2/63/ID dated 24th November, 1967.22. Rule 16 of the said rules speaks about cancellation of quarrying permit and it reads thus:“16. Cancellation of quarrying permit. - If the Government or competent authority under these rules has reason to believe that a permit was obtained by way of submission of any false documents or in contravention of provisions of any other law or the permit holder has violated any of the conditions stipulated under these rules, the State Government or the competent authority may, after giving the permit holder an opportunity of being heard, direct him not to undertake any quarrying operations in the area to which the permit relates and may cancel the permit and in such cases the quarried materials lying on the land from which they are extracted shall become the absolute property of the Government. In such an event, all the royalties and rents paid in advance or part thereof that may stand to the credit of the permit holder shall also be forfeited to Government.”23. Rule 22 of the rules speaks about prohibition of working of quarries and it reads thus:“22. Prohibition of working of quarries.- If the Government or competent authority has reason to believe that the grant of a quarrying permit is in contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter, the Government or the competent authority may, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, direct the parties concerned not to undertake any quarrying operations in the area to which the permit relates.”24. Rule 33 of the rules speaks about disposal of application for grant or renewal of quarrying lease and it reads thus:“33. Disposal of application for the grant or renewal of quarrying lease.- (1) On receipt of the application for grant or renewal of quarrying lease for undertaking quarrying operations, the competent authority shall make site inspection and take decision regarding the precise area to be granted for the said purpose and intimate the applicant to submit approved mining plan and Environmental Clearance for the precise area.(2) On receipt of an approved mining plan and Environmental Clearance for the precise area and on production of all other statutory licenses/clearances/No Objection Certificate etc. from other statutory authorities concerned, the competent authority shall grant a quarrying lease within thirty days.(3) No application shall be refused without affording the applicant an opportunity of being heard.(4) Where the competent authority passes an order refusing to grant or renew a quarrying lease, the reason thereof shall be communicated through a speaking order within fifteen days of the date of the order.”25. Rule 50 of the rules speaks about cancellation of quarrying lease and it reads thus:“50. Cancellation of quarrying lease.- If the Government or competent authority under these rules has reason to believe that the lease granted is in contravention of provisions of any other law or the lessee has violated any of the conditions subject to which the lease is granted, the Government or the competent authority may, after giving the lessee an opportunity of being heard, direct him not to undertake any quarrying operations in the area of the lease and may cancel the lease and in such cases the quarried materials lying on the land from which they are extracted shall become the absolute property of the Government. In such an event, all the royalties and rents paid in advance or part thereof that may stand to the credit of the lessee shall also be forfeited to Government:Provided that where the competent authority is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of regulation of quarries and mineral development, preservation of natural environment, control of floods, prevention of pollution or to avoid danger to public health or communications or to ensure safety of buildings, monuments or other structures or for such other purposes, as the competent authority may deem fit, he may, by an order terminate the quarrying lease with respect to the area or any part thereof covered by such lease.”26. Rule 51 of the rules speaks about refusal for renewal of quarrying lease and it reads thus:“51. Refusal for renewal of quarrying lease.— Where an applicant for renewal of quarrying lease is convicted for illegal quarrying, and there are no interim orders of any court of law suspending the operation of the order of such conviction in appeals pending against such conviction in any court of law, the Government or the competent authority may, after giving such applicant an opportunity of being heard and for reasons to be recorded in

writing and communicated to the applicant, refuse to renew such quarrying lease.”27. Rule 100 of the rules speaks about review and it reads thus:“100. Review.- The competent authority or the Appellate Authority in case its orders have not been challenged in appeal under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 98, as the case may be, or the final Appellate Authority may, on its own motion or an application by the interested party, review any order passed by it and pass such orders in reference thereto as it may deem fit. No order under Rule 99 or 100 shall be passed against any person interested, unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.”28. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the ground of violation of principles of nature justice, in not providing an opportunity of hearing is rejected.29. Exhibit-P4 demand notice has been issued on 18.08.2020. Though Rule 98 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, provides for an appeal, without resorting to the same, the appellant has filed the writ petition. Writ court has directed the appellant to file an appeal as per Rule 98 of the above said rules, within a period of two months from the date of communication of the impugned judgment. As per Rule 100 of the KMMC Rules, 2015, the competent authority or the Appellate Authority, in case its orders have not been challenged in appeal under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 98, as the case may be, or the final Appellate Authority may, on its own motion or an application by the interested party, review any order passed by it and pass such orders in reference thereto as it may deem fit. No order under Rule 99 or 100 shall be passed against any person interested, unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.30. If the orders are not challenged by way of an appeal under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 98, the competent authority or the first Appellate Authority may on his own motion or on the application filed by the interested party, may review the order issued. Admittedly, the appellant has not filed any appeal or sought review of the order of the 2nd respondent – the Geologist, Kottayam.31. Though Mr. Roy Chacko, learned counsel for the appellant, prayed that the appellant be given an opportunity to seek for review, having regard to the fact that at the first instance, he has not chosen to file any review petition, but harping on the ground of failure to provide opportunity of hearing before fixing the quantum, has filed the writ petition, which this court has not agreed to, we are not inclined to accept the prayer for review.Giving due consideration to the material on record and the statutory provision, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment, warranting interference in appeal. Hence, this writ appeal is dismissed.