JUDGMENT : Petitioner owns an item of property. The third respondent, the Village Officer concerned has forwarded Ext.P1 report to the first respondent, the Geologist, stating that the petitioner has removed 2520 cubic meters of ordinary earth from the property. On receipt of Ext.P1 report, the first respondent inspected the property and thereupon, issued a notice to the petitioner on 11.06.2019, alleging that it was revealed in the inspection that the petitioner has removed 2520 cubic meters of ordinary earth from the property, violating the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (the Rules), and directing to show cause why action shall not be taken against him for the violation. According to the petitioner, the natural shape of the property was lost due to accumulation of ordinary earth in the property in the recent flood; that he had only levelled the accumulated earth in the property itself for the agricultural operations carried on therein and he has not removed ordinary earth from the property. The petitioner, in the circumstances, has sent a reply to the first respondent informing him the said stand and requesting him to drop the action proposed against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued Ext.P3 communication by the first respondent styling it as a demand notice and informing the petitioner that the explanation offered by him to the show cause notice is not acceptable; that the petitioner is, therefore, liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,40,800/-towards royalty, price and fine for the ordinary earth found to have been removed from the property, and calling upon the petitioner to pay the said amount. Ext.P3 is under challenge in the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. Since the petitioner did not produce the show cause notice and the reply sent by him to the show cause notice, as required by the court, the learned Government Pleader has made available the said documents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that insofar as the petitioner has denied the allegation in the notice that he has removed ordinary earth from the property, there should have been an adjudication as to whether the petitioner has removed ordinary earth from the property as alleged in the notice, before issuing Ext.P3 demand notice. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that insofar as the petitioner has denied the allegation in the notice that he has removed ordinary earth from the property, there should have been an adjudication as to whether the petitioner has removed ordinary earth from the property as alleged in the notice, before issuing Ext.P3 demand notice. Alternatively, it was contended by the learned counsel that the quantification of the ordinary earth alleged to have been removed by the petitioner has been made by the first respondent without any basis, for there is not even a mahazar of the property prepared by him for the said purpose. It was also contended by the learned counsel that at any rate, the first respondent has no authority to impose fine on the petitioner for the alleged breach of the Rules. It was contended by the learned counsel that there was no effective hearing of the matter by the first respondent before issuing Ext.P3 demand notice. 5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P3 being an order passed by the first respondent invoking the powers under Rule 108 of the Rules, the writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal against orders in the nature of Ext.P3 under the Rules. It was also contended by the learned Government pleader that merely for the reason that mahazar was not prepared by the first respondent, it cannot be said that the quantification of the ordinary earth made by the first respondent is incorrect. It was further contended by the learned Government Pleader that Ext.P1 report of the Village Officer is categoric in its terms, and since it gives the particulars of the property from where the petitioner has removed ordinary earth, the first respondent cannot be found fault with for having issued Ext.P3 order. 6. As noted, in the reply sent to the show cause notice, the petitioner has denied violation of the Rules alleged against him. The specific case of the petitioner is that despite denial of the violation of the Rules, without adjudicating that dispute, proceedings have been initiated for recovery of the amounts on the premise that the petitioner has violated the Rules. The specific case of the petitioner is that despite denial of the violation of the Rules, without adjudicating that dispute, proceedings have been initiated for recovery of the amounts on the premise that the petitioner has violated the Rules. The first and foremost question to be examined, therefore, is as to whether there has been an adjudication of the dispute by the first respondent before Ext.P3 communication was issued to the petitioner. It is seen that in Ext.P3 communication, the first respondent refers to the show cause notice issued by him to the petitioner. The first respondent also recites in Ext.P3 communication that the explanation sent by the petitioner to the show cause notice is not acceptable and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay royalty, price and fine for having removed 2520 cubic meters of ordinary earth from his property. It was on that premise that the first respondent has called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,40,800/- towards royalty, price and fine in respect of the ordinary earth alleged to have been removed by the petitioner from his property. Rule 108 of the Rules confers authority on the first respondent to recover the royalty, price and fine in respect of the minor minerals removed in violation of the Rules. It is thus evident that there has been an adjudication of the dispute raised by the petitioner. Whether the said adjudication conforms to the requirements of law is a different issue altogether. In so far as there has been an adjudication of the dispute raised by the petitioner, it cannot be contended that Ext.P3 communication is a demand notice, though it is styled as a demand notice. Ext.P3 communication being a formal expression of the decision of the first respondent on the dispute raised by the petitioner, the same should have been styled by the first respondent as an order, instead of a demand notice, and it was unnecessary at all for the first respondent to style it as a demand notice, for an adjudication order in respect of a liability of the instant nature would always take within its scope a demand notice as well. In this context, I am constrained to mention that this practice is being followed by the competent authorities under the Rules throughout the State and several writ petitions have come up before this court raising similar contention. In this context, I am constrained to mention that this practice is being followed by the competent authorities under the Rules throughout the State and several writ petitions have come up before this court raising similar contention. Needless to say, the practice aforesaid needs to be changed for avoiding misconceived litigations. 7. The next question is as to whether Ext.P3 order conforms to the requirements of law. I am conscious of the fact that Ext.P3 being an order against which an appeal is provided under the Rules, this Court may not entertain a challenge against the same, unless there are circumstances justifying interference, in exercise of the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. As noted, one of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition is that there was no effective opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed. The said contention being one relating to compliance of the principles of natural justice, this Court would be certainly justified in examining the same, for if it is found that the order is vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice, this Court would be justified in interfering with the same, despite the alternative remedy available to the party. 8. That takes me to the question whether there has been any violation of the principles of natural justice in the matter of the first respondent passing Ext.P3 order. When a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining the rights of parties, adherence to the principles of natural justice is of supreme importance. The first and foremost among the said principles is the principle commonly known as audi alteram partem, viz, that no man should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of that principle. The purpose of notice is to apprise the party the case he has to meet. The time given to the party for showing cause against the action proposed shall also be adequate. The aforesaid are not to be complied with technically, but shall be complied with, so as to enable the party to get a reasonable opportunity to present his case. The time given to the party for showing cause against the action proposed shall also be adequate. The aforesaid are not to be complied with technically, but shall be complied with, so as to enable the party to get a reasonable opportunity to present his case. Coming to the notice again, it must be mentioned that the notice shall necessarily mention the particulars of the act or omission which constitutes the breach of law attracting adverse action, it shall mention the action proposed with necessary particulars, so that the party shall not be taken by surprise, if the competent authority chooses to take the action proposed after compliance of the principles of natural justice and the source of power under which the action is proposed. To be precise, when multiple action is provided for under the Rules in respect of a violation, the party concerned shall certainly be informed as to the particulars of the action proposed against him, for the defence may vary from action to action. The surest test for determining the issue as to whether the notice was sufficient is to ascertain whether the party received the order by surprise and shock [See Canara Bank v. Debasis Das, (2003) 4 SCC 557 , Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd., (2007)5 SCC 388 ) and Smt.Ambika Devi v. State, AIR 1988 Patna 258]. 9. Reverting to the facts, notice dated 11.06.2019 issued by the first respondent to the petitioner before Ext.P3 order reads thus: As evident from the notice, though the same refers to the act which constitutes the breach of law attracting adverse action, the first respondent has not disclosed the quantity of ordinary earth stated to have been removed by the petitioner from the land. The notice does not indicate the particulars of the action proposed against the petitioner, precisely the power that is proposed to be invoked for the same. As regards the action proposed, the notice is vague and ambiguous inasmuch as it only says that action will be taken against the petitioner under law. In a case of this nature, according to me, there shall be an inspection of the property by the competent authority with notice to the indictee. A mahazar of the land from where earth was removed, with sufficient particulars so as to enable one to ascertain the quantity of the earth removed shall be prepared. In a case of this nature, according to me, there shall be an inspection of the property by the competent authority with notice to the indictee. A mahazar of the land from where earth was removed, with sufficient particulars so as to enable one to ascertain the quantity of the earth removed shall be prepared. The notice should certainly refer to the mahazar. It should state the quantity of the earth removed, the nature of the action proposed, the particulars of the dues to be recovered and also the power invoked for the same. If the aforesaid particulars are not furnished to the party concerned in the notice, I have no doubt that in our social scenario, the orders would be received by surprise by the party concerned. Insofar as the notice aforesaid does not contain the necessary particulars, it has to be found necessarily that the same does not conform to the requirements of the principles of natural justice. 10. The learned Government Pleader contended that the petitioner has submitted a reply to the show cause notice, and having submitted a reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that he was not given sufficient notice. It was the contention of the learned Government Pleader that if as a matter of fact, the petitioner wanted any more particulars as to the action proposed against him, he should have sought that information from the first respondent and had the petitioner sought that information from the first respondent, the same would have been made available to him. I do not agree. If the notice issued in a proceedings is not proper, there would be breach of the principles of natural justice and the said defect in the proceedings cannot be cured except by issuing a proper notice. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P3 order is set aside. It is, however, made clear that this judgment will not preclude the first respondent from initiating a fresh proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts payable by him in terms of the Rules, after issuing a notice conforming to the requirements of law. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Secretary to Government, Department of Industry, Government of Kerala, for appropriate action.