JUDGMENT : W.P.(C) No.14524 of 2023 is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P6 notice issued by the 2nd respondent wherein the petitioner was directed to produce documents in respect to an enquiry regarding the area and quantity of the quarrying done by the petitioner. It is averred that the petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of running a quarry. Petitioner submits that they have obtained all requisite licences and permits in order to conduct quarrying operations in their property consisting of 97 Ares of land in survey No.781/1-28-24, 781/1-26-D2 in Athikkayam Village, Ranni Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. While the petitioner was conducting the said quarry, Ext.P1 notice was issued by the 2nd respondent in respect of an enquiry into the extent of mineral quarry from the leased premises based on a survey. Petitioner contending that the said survey was without notice to him, applied for copies of the same under the Right to Information Act and later they were supplied to the petitioner. From Ext.P4 notice, the petitioner came to know that the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau has addressed the District Collector, Pathanamthitta to conduct an inspection into the allegation of extraction of minerals in excess of what is permitted. Thereafter, Ext.P6 notice of enquiry was issued to the petitioner which is under challenge in these proceedings. 2. It is seen that this Court has granted an interim order dated 05.05.2023 against all coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P6 notice. While so Ext.P9 demand notice was issued by the 2nd respondent for an amount of Rs.39,67,76,138/-and this Court as per order dated 23.06.2023, stayed Ext.P9 demand notice for a period of 1 month. Later on petitioner challenged the demand before the 1st appellate authority as provided in Section 98 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 but by Ext.P11 communication, the petitioner was informed that the said appeal cannot be considered since W.P.(C) No. 14524 of 2023 is pending consideration before this Court. 3. Whereas W.P.(C) No. 22817/2023 is filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent Geologist to execute a quarrying lease for the property admeasuring 4.0262 hectares comprised in Survey No. 781/1/28-17-1 (resurvey no. 32), Survey No.781/1/28-17-2 (resurvey No.32) of Athikkayam Village, Ranni Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. 4. Based on an application submitted by the petitioner on 18.04.2018, Ext.P1 order was issued by the 1st respondent whereby a quarrying lease was granted in favour of the petitioner. 32), Survey No.781/1/28-17-2 (resurvey No.32) of Athikkayam Village, Ranni Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. 4. Based on an application submitted by the petitioner on 18.04.2018, Ext.P1 order was issued by the 1st respondent whereby a quarrying lease was granted in favour of the petitioner. By Ext.P2, the 1st respondent directed the petitioner to execute a lease deed. While so proceedings were initiated in respect of another property, which is the subject matter of W.P.(C) No.14524/2023 and no quarrying lease was executed on the basis of Ext P1 order. 5. The learned Government Pleader would submit that a total station survey in the quarry owned by the petitioner was conducted with notice to the petitioner. After the completion of the survey, Ext.R2(d) hearing notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner entered appearance and sought further time. Later on, a further notice, Ext.R2(a), was issued to the petitioner and on 23.03.2023 a representative of the petitioner appeared and requested for further time for the appearance of the petitioner and thereafter on 28.03.2023, the petitioner appeared and submitted the documents in support of his contentions and after hearing, an adjudication order was issued on 20.04.2023 and a subsequent demand notice dated 27.04.2023 for realizing an amount of Rs.39,62,76,138. It is further submitted that the quarry under the ownership of the petitioner, where legal action was initiated is very near to the applied area, where fresh quarrying lease is to be executed. The learned Government pleader relying on Rule 51(2) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules contended that, no mineral concession under the Rules shall be granted/renewed unless all amount due to the Government is cleared. It is further contended that against the order directing payment of the amount due towards mineral illegally extracted, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to file appeal before the Government as provided in Rule 98 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. A further counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent stating that the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Sub Rule 98 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 was disposed of as per Ext.R2(g), wherein direction was issued to the Geologist to scientifically verify the extent of unauthorized extraction of minerals. A further counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent stating that the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Sub Rule 98 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 was disposed of as per Ext.R2(g), wherein direction was issued to the Geologist to scientifically verify the extent of unauthorized extraction of minerals. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that pursuant to the said direction, an adjudication order was issued by the Geologist on 02.12.2023, wherein the earlier demand notice was set aside and a decision was taken to issue a fresh demand notice. Based on the same, a fresh demand notice to the tune of Rs.35,86,51,004 was issued to the petitioner towards the unauthorized extraction of mineral. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that the fresh order/demand issued has not been challenged by the petitioner. 6. I have considered the rival contentions of both sides. W.P. (C) No. 14524/2023 is filed challenging Ext.P6 notice issued by the Geologist to find the extent of unauthorized extraction of mineral by the petitioner, but it could be seen that later on the matter was adjudicated and Ext.P9 demand notice was issued. Though, initially interim orders were granted by this Court, the same is not seen extended further. It is seen that challenging the said demand, appeal was preferred and the same was disposed of by the Government as per Ext.P8 and based on the same the demand was revised and a fresh demand notice was issued wherein the petitioner was directed to remit an amount of Rs. 35,86,51,004. In view of the subsequent development including disposal of the appeal and consequent fresh demand issued as per the demand notice dated 02.12.2023, I am of the view that no relief could be granted to the petitioner and this writ petition cloud be closed reserving the right of the petitioner to challenge the adjudication order of the Geologist dated 02.12.2023 and the consequent demand made by the 2nd respondent, in appropriate proceedings. 7. As regards W.P.(C) No. 22817/2023, the relief sought for by the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents to execute a quarrying lease in respect of the property admeasuring 4.0262 hectares comprised in Survey No. 781/1/28-17-1 (resurvey no. 32), Survey No. 781/1/28-17-2 (resurvey no. 32) of Athikkayam Village, Ranni Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. 7. As regards W.P.(C) No. 22817/2023, the relief sought for by the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents to execute a quarrying lease in respect of the property admeasuring 4.0262 hectares comprised in Survey No. 781/1/28-17-1 (resurvey no. 32), Survey No. 781/1/28-17-2 (resurvey no. 32) of Athikkayam Village, Ranni Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. The thrust of the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by Ext.P1 order, the 1st respondent has granted a quarrying lease in the name of the petitioner and what remains is only a consequential execution of an agreement as directed in Ext.P2 issued by the 1st respondent. Petitioner contends that provisions of Rule 51 (2) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in as much as the only interdiction as per the above-said Rule is only with regard to grant/renewal of a lease, if there are any dues on account of mining of any minor mineral and that in the present case as per Ext.P1 lease has already been granted and therefore the respondents are bound to execute a lease agreement. Rule 51 (2) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 reads as follows: “51. Refusal for renewal of quarrying lease:- (1) x x x (2) In any case or class of cases where any amount is due to Government from any person/firm/association/company on account of mining of minor minerals from any land, no mineral concession under these rules shall be granted/renewed in the said land to any person/firm/company/association and no mineral concession under these Rules shall be granted/renewed to such person/firm/company/association in any land in the State unless all due are cleared.” Admittedly, amounts are due from the petitioner on the allegation that there is unauthorized extraction of mineral. Though Ext.P9 demand was made for an amount of Rs. 39,67,76,138/-, based on an appellate order, a revised demand notice was issued on 02.12.2023 for an amount of Rs. 35,86,51,004/-. So admittedly, amount is due from the petitioner to the Government on account of mining of minor mineral and the said demand is not yet challenged by the petitioner. Though Ext.P9 demand was made for an amount of Rs. 39,67,76,138/-, based on an appellate order, a revised demand notice was issued on 02.12.2023 for an amount of Rs. 35,86,51,004/-. So admittedly, amount is due from the petitioner to the Government on account of mining of minor mineral and the said demand is not yet challenged by the petitioner. The dues are in respect of a different property and the fresh lease has been sought in respect of another property of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader submits that in the said circumstances, Ext.P1 lease was granted. Even if Ext.P1 lease is granted when amounts are due to the Government on account of mining of minor mineral from any land, no mineral concession shall be granted/renewed unless all dues are cleared. In view of the specific interdiction as per Rule 51 (2) of the Rules 2015, I am of the opinion that when there are dues to the Government on account of mining of minor mineral, even if a lease has been granted, the petitioner cannot contend that the respondents are bound to execute a lease agreement in favour of the petitioner until the dues are cleared. Only for the reason that the lease has been granted as per Ext.P1, the petitioner could not be absolved of the rigor of Rule 51(2) of the Rules 2015. In view of the same, I am not inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.