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.

JUDGMENT :

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.

1. The 7^th respondent submitted an application to the 2^nd 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 7^th respondent must produce an explosives licence for extracting minerals from the specified area as outlined in the approved mining plan.

2. The 3^rd respondent issued Ext.P4, the LE-3 explosives licence, to the 8^th 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 8^th respondent submitted an application to the 3^rd respondent, seeking permission to use explosives in the proposed quarry of the 7^th respondent, utilising his Ext. P4 licence. Based on this application, the 3^rd respondent extended the licence to include the property of the proposed quarry of the 7^th respondent, thereby permitting the 8^th respondent to use explosives there. Subsequently, the 7^th respondent entered into Ext.P5 agreement with the 8^th respondent for carrying out blasting operations within his quarry. The 7^th respondent asserts that, by virtue of this arrangement with the 8^th respondent, he has effectively obtained an explosives licence in accordance with the Explosives Rules, 2008 (for short, ‘Explosives Rules). However, the petitioners contend that this arrangement does not satisfy condition No. (4) in Ext. P3, the Letter of Intent, and that the 7^th respondent must personally obtain an explosives licence. It was in these circumstances, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking an order to direct respondents 2 and 3 not to grant permission for the conducting of quarry to the 7^th respondent until he produces an explosives licence in his name. They also seek to quash Ext.P4 to the extent it authorises the 8^th respondent to use explosives in the quarry of the 7^th respondent.

3. The 1^st respondent filed a counter-affidavit supporting the petitioners. It is stated that, for granting quarrying permission, the explosives licence must be in the name of the proponent, and that the 1^st respondent declined the 7^th respondent's request to treat Ext.P4 as a valid explosives licence, instructing him to produce an explosives licence issued in his own name. The communication from the 1^st respondent to the 7^th respondent regarding this matter has been produced and marked as Ext.R1(a). It is further stated that the 1^st respondent will only consider the 7^th respondent's application for the quarrying licence upon production of an explosives licence in his name.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent, it is contended that for mining operations, the explosives licence is issued by the Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organisation (PESO) in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Explosives Rules. It is further contended that initially, the Department of Mining and Geology insisted on production of an explosives licence in the applicant’s name, but due to PESO's intervention, the Department began considering the explosives licence issued to another party, provided that the Letter of Intent or Concession numbers and survey numbers of the quarry are specified in the licence. It is also stated that the KMMC Rules do not require that the explosives licence be held in the name of the concession holder.

5. In the counter statement filed by respondents 3 and 4, it is contended that the 3^rd respondent received an application from the 8^th respondent for permission to use explosives in a quarry located at Re.Sy.No.541/2 of