IMPORTANT POINTS:
" The State Government, in its role as a guardian of the ecology and preserver of the natural resources within the State cannot permit extraction of minerals in an unscientific way and regardless of the adverse impact that it may have on the environment and local ecosystem.
" The specific grants given by the State Government for mining activities must be seen in the backdrop of the data possessed by the State Government with respect to the extent of mineral available in such lands.

A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

1. All these Writ Appeals arise from the common judgment dated 9.11.2018 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.19791, 17017, 25136 and 22963 of 2018. The sole issue raised in these Writ Appeals is the correctness of the finding of the learned Single Judge as regards the liability of the appellants herein to pay penalty under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957,on the quantity of mineral mined by them in excess, from Government puramboke lands over which they had quarrying leases, and under circumstances where they had already paid a consolidated royalty in terms of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules for the said quantity of the mineral extracted by them. It is not in dispute in these cases that the appellants herein had extracted minerals from the land, far in excess of the quantity that they were permitted to extract under the grants issued to them in terms of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules.

2. The learned Single Judge, through the common judgment, found that there was no provision either under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act or under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules enabling the appellants herein to mine minerals in contravention of the conditions contained under the lease arrangements. The learned Judge took note of the contention of the appellants/petitioners in the Writ Petitions that since no quantity was prescribed in the lease agreements, they were entitled to do limitless quarrying, and found that the said contention could not be legally sustained for the reason that the total tonnage charges and amounts to be paid by the lease holders were clearly prescribed in the lease agreements that were executed. On the said finding, the learned Judge found that there was no basis for the contention advanced by the appellants that they were not liable to pay any amount as demanded under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and Rules.

3. Before us, it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.Sreekumar, duly assisted by Sri.P.M.Ziraj, for the appellants in the Writ Appeals 728 and 764 of 2018, the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Jaju Babu duly assisted by Sri.P.M.Ziraj in Writ Appeal No.805 of 2019 and Sri.A.V.James, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.338 of 2019, that a perusal of the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 as also the prior Rules namely, the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, it can be seen that the concept of payment of royalty at consolidated rates was introduced for the first time with effect from 19.3.2002 under the 1967 Rules and the same was continued under the 2015 Rules. It is pointed out that while under the 1967 Rules, the payment of consolidated royalty was made mandatory and in lieu of the royalty at the rates specified in Schedule I of the said Rules, in the later Rules of 2015 the payment of royalty on consolidated basis is available as an option to persons engaged in operating metal crusher units. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that once the royalty is paid on consolidated basis, either by reference to the jaw size of the crushers used in the unit or on the basis of the number of passes issued for transporting the granite building stone, the lease holder obtains the right to extract limitless quantity of minerals from the land covered by the quarrying lease. It is submitted, therefore, that in view of the collection of consolidated royalty from them, there was no justification whatsoever for the State Government to impose any penalty or compensation amounts on the lease holders, in terms of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and Rules.

4. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find that it is not in dispute that as per the terms of the grant under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the appellants were permitted to extract only a defined quantity of mineral from the area leased out to them under the quarrying lease. It is al