The review petitioner, claiming to be a resident of the locality, seeks review of the directions in the judgment, impugned herein, permitting the writ petitioner to remove the granite aggregate remaining in the unit, to which the writ petitioner has obtained a quarrying licence, which, allegedly, was quarried prior to 2013-14. The specific direction assailed by the review petitioner is:

"Further, the granite aggregate remaining, as is evidenced from Exhibit P15, i.e., 5,034.500 tonnes, shall also be permitted to be transported after the 2nd respondent inspects the premises and identifies the said stock as having been removed in the financial year 2012-13".

2. The writ petition was filed for the purpose of setting off, the royalty paid in the year 2013-14, as against quarrying licence obtained by the writ petitioner; but, however, no quarrying operations have been carried on, for reason of the rejection of the application for D&O Licence by the Panchayat as well as the stop memo issued by the District Geologist.

3. A reading of the judgment would indicate that the petitioner had quarrying lease for different periods, between 06.09.2011 and 20.09.2021 and between 08.02.2010 and 07.02.2022. During the financial year 2013-14, the District Collector issued a prohibitory order [Exhibit P6 in the writ petition], directing stoppage of the quarries owned by the writ petitioner; based on which the Geologist also issued a stop memo. The Panchayat had also cancelled the D&O Licence issued in the said financial year; pursuant to which the writ petitioner was not able to carry on any quarrying operations in the financial years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. By the year 2016-17, the petitioner obtained an Environmental Clearance [for brevity "EC"], though that was not a requirement in view of the quarrying lease of the writ petitioner having been issued prior to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar and Others v. State of Hawryana & Others [(2012) 4 SCC 629] and the Office Memorandum of the year 2012 amending the EIA notification of 2006. The writ petitioner also obtained a D&O Licence for the year 2016-2017.

4. This Court directed set off, of the consolidated royalty paid by the writ petitioner for the financial year 2013-14 and directed that the quarried metal remaining in the property, which is said to have been quarried in the financial year 2012-13 be permitted to be removed. The direction was issued specifically noticing the total quantity of quarried metal as revealed from the report of the Auditor and the transported metal based on the O(A) Forms, which was also specifically referred to by the Auditor. It was also directed that necessary O(A) Forms shall be issued for transport of the said metal remaining in the unit, which is assailed in the review petition.

5. The review petitioner contends that sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 [for brevity "MMDR Act"] mandates confiscation of any mineral and the tools, equipments, vehicles, etc. used for quarrying operations, if the quarry is found to be illegal. The review petitioner also relies on Annexure A9 judgment to contend that the petitioner had no D&O Licence and, hence, the quarrying is illegal. To further buttress the contention, the learned Counsel points out the distinction, in the words employed in sub-section (1) and (4) of Section 21 to drive home the point that a quarry conducted without a D&O Licence would all the same be an illegal activity, based on which confiscation could be made under sub-section (4), whereas sub-section (1) only speaks of contravention of the specific provisions of the statute. Reliance is further placed on the Circular No.24399/A3/2010/ID dated 09.06.2011 that there should be a provision in the license issued that quarrying operations can be carried on only after getting D&O Licence from the Local Self Government Institution. Reference is also made to Clause 17 of Exhibit P