IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
Kavumkal Granites – Appellant
Versus
Director, Directorate Of Mining And Geology Kesavadasapuram – Respondent
WP(C) No. 22817 of 2023, WP(C) No. 14524 Of 2023
Decided on : 16-01-2024
quarrying - challenge to notice - Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 - Section 98 - Rule 51(2)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a notice issued by the Geologist regarding unauthorized extraction of minerals and a subsequent demand notice. Another petition sought a direction to execute a quarrying lease for a different property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's challenge to the demand notice and the subsequent fresh demand notice was not granted relief. The court also dismissed the petition seeking a direction to execute a quarrying lease due to outstanding dues to the government.
Issues: Challenge to notice of unauthorized extraction, demand notice, and petition for quarrying lease execution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner could not be absolved of the requirement to clear dues to the government before executing a lease, as per Rule 51(2) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions and reserved the petitioner's right to challenge the adjudication order and consequent demand in appropriate proceedings.
JUDGMENT :
W.P.(C) No.14524 of 2023 is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P6 notice issued by the 2nd respondent wherein the petitioner was directed to produce documents in respect to an enquiry regarding the area and quantity of the quarrying done by the petitioner. It is averred that the petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of running a quarry. Petitioner submits that they have obtained all requisite licences and permits in order to conduct quarrying operations in their property consisting of 97 Ares of land in survey No.781/1-28-24, 781/1-26-D2 in Athikkayam Village, Ranni Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. While the petitioner was conducting the said quarry, Ext.P1 notice was issued by the 2nd respondent in respect of an enquiry into the extent of mineral quarry from the leased premises based on a survey. Petitioner contending that the said survey was without notice to him, applied for copies of the same under the Right to Information Act and later they were supplied to the petitioner. From Ext.P4 notice, the petitioner came to know that the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau has addressed the District Collector, Pathanamthitta to conduct an inspection into the allegation of extraction of minerals in excess of what is permitted. Thereafter, Ext.P6 notice of enquiry was issued to the petitioner which is under challenge in these proceedings.
2. It is seen that this Court has granted an interim order dated 05.05.2023 against all coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P6 notice. While so Ext.P9 demand notice was issued by the 2nd respondent for an amount of Rs.39,67,76,138/-and this Court as per order dated 23.06.2023, stayed Ext.P9 demand notice for a period of 1 month. Later on petitioner challenged the demand before the 1st appellate authority as provided in Section 98 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 but by Ext.P11 communication, the petitioner was informed that the said appeal cannot be considered since W.P.(C) No. 14524 of 2023 is pending consideration before this Court.
3. Whereas W.P.(C) No. 22817/2023 is filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent Geologist to execute a quarrying lease for the property admeasuring 4.0262 hectares comprised in Survey No. 781/1/28-17-1 (resurvey no. 32), Survey No.781/1/28-17-2 (resurvey No.32) of Athikkayam Village, Ranni Taluk, Pathanamthitta District.
4. Based on an application submitted by the petitioner on 18.04.2018, Ext.P1 order was issued by the 1st respondent whereby a quarrying lease was granted in favour of the petitioner. By Ext.P2, the 1st respondent directed the petitioner to execute a lease deed. While so proceedings were initiated in respect of another property, which is the subject matter of W.P.(C) No.14524/2023 and no quarrying lease was executed on the basis of Ext P1 order.
5. The learned Government Pleader would submit that a total station survey in the quarry owned by the petitioner was conducted with notice to the petitioner. After the completion of the survey, Ext.R2(d) hearing notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner entered appearance and sought further time. Later on, a further notice, Ext.R2(a), was issued to the petitioner and on 23.03.2023 a representative of the petitioner appeared and requested for further time for the appearance of the petitioner and thereafter on 28.03.2023, the petitioner appeared and submitted the documents in support of his contentions and after hearing, an adjudication order was issued on 20.04.2023 and a subsequent demand notice dated 27.04.2023 for realizing an amount of Rs.39,62,76,138. It is further submitted that the quarry under the ownership of the petitioner, where legal action was initiated is very near to the applied area, where fresh quarrying lease is to be executed. The learned Government pleader relying on Rule 51(2) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules contended that, no mineral concession under the Rules shall be granted/renewed unless all amount due to the Gove
The court emphasized the discretionary and equitable nature of the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, and the duty to balance interests and equities while exercising such jurisdict....
Point of law : A writ court adjudicating the issues in a summary manner, is not expected to interfere with any factual findings, after calling for records from the statutory authorities.
Past violations of quarrying lease terms disqualify the lessee from receiving new leases, signifying that compounding does not negate accountability for serious infractions.
Lease applications must be considered only after verifying that any dues owed by the applicant have been settled, emphasizing compliance with regulatory rules.
The issuance of a demand notice without providing an opportunity for a hearing violates the principles of natural justice, necessitating its annulment and remand for proper inquiry.
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 t....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.