Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAVUMKAL GRANITES – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
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.
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.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amended Rule 56, which came into effect in 2021, cannot be applied retrospectively to violations that occurred before its enactment.
The court reaffirmed the authority of state governments to impose penalties under minor mineral concession rules, emphasizing that such penalties are lawful per Sections 14, 15, and 21 of the MMDR Ac....
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 court validated the authority of the state to impose penalties for unauthorized quarrying, establishing compliance with statutory rules as per the MMDR Act.
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.
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.
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
