Permissible extraction limits must be strictly adhered to as per mining laws; miscalculating these affects the validity of demand notices for illegal extraction of minerals.

JUDGMENT :

C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P25 demand notice issued by the department of Mining and Geology calling upon him to pay a total sum of Rs.23,00,50,571/-. As per Ext.P25, the balance amount to be paid by the petitioner, after deducting the payment of 20% at the time of statutory appeal, is Rs.15,83,20,171/-. Ext.P25 notice is issued alleging illegal extraction of minerals in excess of the lease and permit granted to the petitioner.

2. Primarily, it is noticed that this is the third round of litigation before this Court, based on the original demand notice issued to the petitioner, alleging excess excavation of mineral. For a correct understanding of the issues involved, a brief narration of the facts, which transpired has to be recorded, inasmuch as the alleged illegal extraction spreads over a period from 2004 to 2022. Initially, by virtue of Ext.P2, the petitioner was granted a lease for a period of ten years in respect of the subject property. As per clause 8 of Ext.P2, the quantity of the granite building stone, which could be produced under Ext.P2 grant, was restricted to 10,000 tonnes per year during the tenure of 10 years of quarrying lease. Ext.P2 is followed by Ext.P3 quarrying lease, which was also for a period of 10 years. The permitted quantity of production of granite building stone was 10,000 tonnes per year, during the tenure of Ext.P3 quarrying lease. The third lease issued in favour of the petitioner is produced at Ext.P4, which was for a period of ten years. However, the production of building stone was restricted to 1,00,000 MT per year during the period of quarrying lease. In addition to that, the petitioner was granted Exts.P6 and P7 permits dated 24.08.2020 and 02.09.2021 respectively, each stipulating a quantity of 70,785 MT for extraction of mineral. Besides, the petitioner was also given the benefit of the Consolidated Royalty Payment System (CRPS), which is relevant in the context of the Proviso to Rule 108 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (for short 'K.M.M.C Rules') as it existed originally; and which was deleted in the year 2023. Needless to say that, the proviso was in vogue during the factual period reckoned in this Writ Petition.

3. Initially, a stop memo was issued. Annexure-R3(a) dated 23.06.2020 is an Order issued by the Director of Mining and Geology, permitting the functioning of the petitioner's unit as per law, simultaneous with a direction to quantify the excess excavation of granite building stone, if any, done in the premises and to assess the loss therefrom. Thereafter, on 31.01.2023, a site inspection was conducted and Annexure-R3(b) Mahazar was prepared. It is relevant to note that the petitioner was a signatory to Annexure-R3(b) Mahazar. On the basis of the inspection, Annexure-R3(c) notice was issued on 09.02.2023, which found that there was illegal extraction of the mineral. Annexure-R3(c) called upon the petitioner to produce the grants and licenses in his favour, along with the details of payment of royalty. The petitioner sought for 21 days time to comply, which was granted. Accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to be present on 22.03.2023, vide Annexure-R3(d). Ultimately, the petitioner’s lawyer was heard. The documents were produced by the petitioner on 28.03.2023 and Annexure-R3(e) Order was passed, quantifying the excess quantity of the mineral mined. Illegal extraction was found to the extent of 55,03,835.25 MT. Accordingly, Annexure-R3(f) directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.39,67,76,138/-. The petitioner challenged the same by filing a Writ Petition (the first one) bearing No.14524/2023. The same was disposed of directing the petitioner to prefer a statutory appeal. Accordingly, statutory appeal was filed on 03.08.2023, which was considered and Annexure-R3(g) Order dated 05.10.2023 was passed. Annexure-R3(g) refers to the events which transpired earlier and the fact that the excess excavation was found by appl