Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
Jaice John S/o John – Appellant
Versus
Director of Mining and Geology, Kesavadasapuram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
1. The 7th respondent submitted an application to the 2nd respondent on 6/08/2018 to establish a quarry in the property measuring 1.0336 Hectares in Re.Sy.No.541/2 in Block No.13 of Purapuzha Village, owned by one Somy Joseph of Vattakkat House, Kuninji P.O., which is located near the petitioners' residential houses. He obtained Ext.P3 Letter of Intent under Rule 8 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (for short, the KMMC Rules) from the Geology Department. As per condition No. (4) of Ext.P3, the 7th respondent must produce an explosives licence for extracting minerals from the specified area as outlined in the approved mining plan.
2. The 3rd respondent issued Ext.P4, the LE-3 explosives licence, to the 8th respondent, to possess for use of explosives at a magazine located at Sy.Nos. 282/1-2, 303/2-1, 303/2-2, 302/2-2, and 302/3, Block No.41 of Thiruvaniyoor Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk, Ernakulam. This licence remains valid until 31/3/2027. The 8th respondent submitted an application to the 3rd respondent, seeking permission to use explosives in the proposed quarry of the 7th respondent, utilising his Ext. P4 licence. Based on this appli
A project proponent must obtain an explosives licence in their own name to qualify for a quarrying permit, as using another's licence is not permissible under mining regulations.
Point of law: Fact that Rule 103(3)(b) of the Explosive Rules, 2008 has dispensed with public notice and hearing, would not oust the power of the authority to examine public complaints received again....
Licensing authorities must adhere strictly to provisions of the relevant statute and cannot refuse licence renewal based solely on unrelated statutes without concluding inquiries.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities followed due process and considered environmental impact and statutory requirements before granting permits and clearances for....
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....
The main legal point established is that the authority's decision to prohibit quarrying operations, despite obtaining necessary clearances, was not legally justified.
The District Task Force Committee lacks jurisdiction to cancel a quarrying license; only designated competent authorities may do so after due process.
The court established the application of the deeming provision for license renewal and clarified the legal requirements for renewal, addressing the interference by the Panchayat Committee and the nec....
The court emphasizes the necessity for independent decision-making by a statutory authority concerning licensing, as mandated by relevant rules.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
