JUDGMENT : Above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P11, P12, P13, P16, P19, P20, P21 and P24 and for a declaration that petitioner is entitled to remove the entire quantity of 4484 metric tones of ordinary earth from the property permitted in Ext.P8 order of the 2 nd respondent and for grant of necessary number of transit passess. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner purchased certain extent of land for setting up a diary farm. Construction as well as development permit was granted by the local authority. Earth is to be removed so as to level the land for undertaking construction activities. Necessary royalty was paid and consequently Ext.P8 order was issued granting transit passes for 280 loads. Later 100 transit passes were issued and after removing earth using the said transit passes, further 100 passes were applied, which has been withheld by the 2 nd respondent. While so, Ext.P11 communication was issued whereby direction was issued by the Geologist to the local authority to file a report on the complaint raised that earth in excess of what is permitted has been removed. The local authority in turn as per Ext.P12 intimated the Geologist that as per the report of the Assistant Engineer, LSGD, mining has been done outside the area permitted as per the permit and as the earth is heaped in the property, the actual quantity could not be ascertained. Thereupon, the 2 nd respondent issued Ext.P13 letter directing the Village Officer to measure the quantity of earth already removed from the plot with the help of the Taluk surveyor. When the matter came up for consideration on 08.04.2022, this Court was pleased to issue an interim order directing the issuance of necessary permit to the petitioner whereby permitting the respondents to take necessary action if there is any excessive extraction. Thereupon, Ext.P16 order was issued by the Geologist granting 69 mineral transit passes for removal of earth. Petitioner contended that the finding in Ext.P16 that 1828.5 cubic meters of earth has already been removed and what remains is only 413.5 cubic meters is without any basis. It is contended that later Ext.P19 demand notice was issued by the 2 nd respondent Geologist demanding an amount of Rs.14,61,700/- towards penalty for removal of 14617 metric ton. Petitioner contended that the finding in Ext.P16 that 1828.5 cubic meters of earth has already been removed and what remains is only 413.5 cubic meters is without any basis. It is contended that later Ext.P19 demand notice was issued by the 2 nd respondent Geologist demanding an amount of Rs.14,61,700/- towards penalty for removal of 14617 metric ton. Petitioner submits that Ext.P16 is based on Ext.P20 inspection report which is also without any basis and just a guess work. Petitioner would contend that the proceedings were initiated based on Ext.P21 mahazar which was prepared behind the back of the petitioner wherein a finding was entered that earth has been removed in violation of permit condition. To the surprise of the petitioner, Ext.P24 notice was also issued by the Geologist directing the petitioner to show cause why penalty shall not be imposed for violation of the permit condition in as much as not even the basement of the building was not constructed within a period of one year, to which Ext.P25 reply was submitted by the petitioner. It is in the said circumstance that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the above stated reliefs. 3. A counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit have been filed by the 2 nd respondent wherein it is contended that an inspection was conducted on 12.04.2022 as this Court in interim order dated 08.04.2022 has permitted the respondents to take necessary action if there is any case of excessive extraction and after inspection, the 2 nd respondent found that 69 transit passes could be granted which is sufficient to remove the balance earth entitled to be removed as per the development permit but the petitioner did not accept the same. It is further contended that the petitioner has misused the transit passes. It is also contended that petitioner flouted all the permit conditions and the conditions in the development permit and encroached vast area outside the permit area. Therefore necessary action was initiated against the petitioner. After issuance of Ext.P19 demand notice, a request was submitted by the petitioner as Ext.P22 and thereupon a joint inspection was conducted with notice to the petitioner as evident from Ext.R2(m) but the petitioner did not turn up. Therefore, it is contended that whatever steps that has been initiated against the petitioner was after conducting an inspection with notice to the petitioner and therefore no interference is called for. Therefore, it is contended that whatever steps that has been initiated against the petitioner was after conducting an inspection with notice to the petitioner and therefore no interference is called for. 4. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides. 5. Admittedly, based on the request made by the petitioner as Ext.P22, a joint inspection was conducted with notice to the petitioner but the petitioner did not turn up for joint inspection. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, on 08.04.2022, Ext.P16 decision was taken to grant 69 mineral transit passes to the petitioner. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the findings in Ext.P16 that 1828.5 cubic metres was removed and that only 413.5 cubic meters remains to be removed is without any basis and therefore did not accept Ext.P16 order. 6. Let me consider the orders impugned in this writ petition. Ext.P11 is a communication issued by the Geologist addressed to the local authority to submit a report as to whether earth has been removed in violation of the development permit. Ext.P12 is the reply submitted by the local authority intimating the Geologist that earth has been extracted beyond the permitted area as per the development permit and as the earth has been heaped in the property, the exact quantity could not be ascertained. Ext P13 is the request made by the Geologist to the Village Officer, to ascertain with the help of the Taluk Surveyor, the earth already removed by the petitioner. Since these are communications between the authorities concerned to ascertain the quantity of the earth removed by the petitioner based on the complaint that earth has been removed in excess, I find absolutely no reason to interfere with the said communications. Ext.P16 is the order by which petitioner was issued 69 mineral transit passes whereas the request of the petitioner is for issuance of 100 transit passes. Petitioner has not accepted the same as he is aggrieved by the finding in Ext.P16 that 1828.5 cubic metres was removed and that only 413.5 cubic meters remains to be removed. Ext.P19 is demand notice issued by the Geology Department imposing a penalty of Rs.14,61,700/- for unauthorised removal of earth in excess of the permitted quantity which has been issued after issuing notice to the petitioner and after considering the objection filed by the petitioner. Ext.P19 is demand notice issued by the Geology Department imposing a penalty of Rs.14,61,700/- for unauthorised removal of earth in excess of the permitted quantity which has been issued after issuing notice to the petitioner and after considering the objection filed by the petitioner. Ext.P20 is the inspection report based on which Ext.P16 was issued granting 69 passes to the petitioner. Ext.P21 is the inspection mahazar wherein there is a finding that mining has been conducted in violation of the permit granted. Ext.P24 is the show cause notice issued by the Geologist directing the petitioner to show cause why penalty shall not be imposed for violation of the permit condition in as much as not even the basement of the building was not constructed within a period of one year, to which Ext.P25 reply was submitted by the petitioner. Since Exts.P20 and P21 are inspection reports, I find no reason to interfere with the same as the petitioner is entitled to challenge the orders issued relying on the same. In the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that since Exts.P16 and P19 demand notices are appealable orders before the Additional Secretary, Industries A Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram as per Section 98 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 the petitioner could be relegated to avail the appellate remedy. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed as follows: Petitioner may file an appeal before the appellate authority challenging Exts.P16 and P19 proceedings within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. If there is any delay in filing the appeal, the period during which the petitioner was prosecuting this matter before this Court, could be excluded for calculating the period of limitation if any. If an appeal is preferred as above, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the Appellate Authority/additional 5 th respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such appeal, with notice to the petitioner. Subject to the outcome of the appeal, the request of the petitioner for issuance of transit passes shall be considered by the 2 nd respondent Geologist. A decision pursuant to Ext.P24 show cause notice shall be taken by the 2 nd respondent after duly adverting to Ext.P25 reply submitted by the petitioner and with notice to him.