JUDGMENT Soumen Sen, C.J. 1. Heard Mr.V.Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader and Mr.Jobi Jose Kondody, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Law is settled by a Coordinate Bench in Rajesh.G & anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2021 KHC Online 5085 : 2021 (5) KLT 549 wherein, in paragraph No.22, it has been held that for the purpose of determining liability and penalty, the law prevailing at the time when the illegal quarrying took place shall be the sole consideration and taking into account such factors, appropriate orders shall be passed, with reasons, quantifying the penalty, if any. 3. In the instant case, the penalty proceeds on the basis of certain illegal mining alleged to have been carried out prior to 2015, when the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules , 1967 (for short “1967 Rules”) were in force, and in view of paragraph No.22 of the judgment in Rajesh’s case (supra), it is incumbent upon the concerned Authority to calculate the penalty, if any, on the basis of the illegal mining claimed to have been undertaken by the predecessor of the Appellants or by the Appellants, as the case may be. 4. The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State has submitted that the investigation has revealed illegal mining and excavation of minerals subsequent to 2015 and accordingly, the 1967 Rules would not apply to such excavation. That, however, was not the issue before the learned Single Judge. In any event, paragraph No.22 of the judgment in Rajesh’s case (supra), makes it clear that the law prevailing at the relevant point of time when the alleged offence is stated to have committed would be the law applicable to such cases. 5. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 25.07.2025, as the said order does not preclude the Appellants from initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty, if it is found that any illegal excavation has been carried out after the mining lease was granted in favour of the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of.