The court established that the competent authority should not grant a fresh quarrying lease or renew an existing lease to a person who has committed serious violations of the terms of the lease and the provisions of the Rules. The court also emphasized the need for stringent provisions to deter violators from causing damage to the environment and natural resources.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner challenges in this writ petition Ext.P12 quarrying lease issued to the tenth respondent for extraction of granite building stones under the Kerala Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2015 (the Rules).

2. The tenth respondent was earlier issued Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases under the Rules for the very same purpose, of which Ext.P1 was in respect of 0.7270 hectares of land in Survey Nos.158/6, 158/12-2 and 158/5 of Ittiva Village and Ext.P2 was in respect of 0.85 hectares of Government land in Survey No.161 of the very same village. The said quarrying leases were issued on 24.03.2006 and the same were valid till 23.03.2018. Ext.P12 quarrying lease was issued thereafter to the tenth respondent on 17.02.2018 in respect of 1.0905 hectares of Government and private lands in Resurvey Nos.158/3, 158/5, 158/6, 158/7-2, 158/8, 158/10, 158/12-2 and 158/11 of Ittiva Village. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition in essence is that on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases, the tenth respondent has extracted minerals far in excess of the quantity permitted, flouting the various conditions stipulated therein, and such a person ought not have been issued a fresh quarrying lease. It is alleged by the petitioner that on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases, the tenth respondent has extracted 1,48,296 metric tons of granite stones in excess of the quantity permitted not only from the Government lands covered by the quarrying leases, but also from the adjoining Government and private lands. It is stated by the petitioner that he is residing within 300 meters from the land covered by Ext.P12 quarrying lease; that the quarrying activity undertaken by the tenth respondent in the said land is causing air, water and noise pollution in the area and that the petitioner is suffering from various ailments on account of the same.

3. Several affidavits have been filed in the matter by the petitioner as also the official and party respondents. As I find that the averments in most of the said affidavits are irrelevant in the context of the essential question raised by the petitioner in the writ petition viz, whether the competent authority under the Rules was justified in issuing Ext.P12 quarrying lease to the tenth respondent, I am referring in this judgment only to the affidavits which are relevant in the context.

4. The third respondent, the District Geologist has filed a counter affidavit in the matter on 07.11.2018 admitting that the tenth respondent has extracted minerals in excess of the quantity permitted in terms of Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases. The stand taken by the third respondent in the said counter affidavit, however, is that the extraction of minerals over and above the permissible quantity is a compoundable offence and the offences committed by the tenth respondent in this regard have been compounded on payment of the sum payable in terms of Rule 108(2) of the Rules.

5. The tenth respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the matter on 15.11.2018 stating, among others, that the petitioner has approached the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara in O.S No.266 of 2017 seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining him from conducting quarrying operations in the lands covered by Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases; that the application for temporary injunction was rejected by the court and therefore the writ petition is barred by principles of constructive res judicata. It was also contended by the tenth respondent in the counter affidavit that he did not contravene the terms of Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases; that the petitioner is one of his close relatives; that the petitioner is residing permanently in South Africa; that the petitioner visits his family house near the land covered by Ext.P12 quarrying lease only occasionally; that the allegations made in the writ petition as regards the pollution caused on account of the operation of the quarry in the land covered by Ext.