Claims of past violations cannot invalidate legal operations; the court permits continuation of quarrying under current approvals and emphasizes lawful compliance.

JUDGMENT :

SYAM KUMAR V.M., J.

1. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 13.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.23894 of 2025. Appellant was the 9^th respondent in the said W.P.(C).

2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the petitioners inter alia challenging the constitutional validity of clause (iv) and proviso to sub-para 1 of para 9 of Ext.P8 notification and Ext.P9 office memorandum. The primary contention put forth was that mere remittance of the royalty or penalty cannot exonerate a project proponent from the rigours of having violated the mining plan and that compounding an offence will not wipe off the impact of violation of the mining plan. An ancillary prayer to cancel Ext.P20 Environmental Clearance granted to the appellant to operate the quarry was also sought insofar as earlier the appellant had been subjected to compounding and imposition of penalty. An interim prayer inter alia seeking a direction to the official respondents to ensure that the appellant does not carry out any mining based on Ext.P20 Environment Clearance had also been sought in the W.P.(C).

3. The learned Single Judge admitted the W.P.(C) and proceeded to consider the interim prayer. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge rendered the impugned interim order, the operative portion whereof which reads as follows :

“18. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to the 9th respondent to stop all further quarrying activities forthwith, until the above exercise in terms of Rule 68(2) and Rule 50 is done by the Government or the competent authority, as the case may be. In view of the fact that the quarrying operations are directed to be stalled, there will be a direction to the concerned among respondents 3, 5 and 6 to take an appropriate call as directed above. For the sake of convenience, this Court bifurcates the consideration under Rule 68(2) to be done by the 6th respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. For the purpose of Rule 50, this Court directs the 3rd respondent or the 5th respondent, as the case may be, to take a call within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that once consideration of Rule 68(2) is in favour of the 9th respondent, the quarrying operations can be resumed; and the same need not wait until consideration in terms of Rule 50 is completed, subject to the 9th respondent possessing all requisite licenses, permits, E.Cs etc as per law. If the consideration based on Rule 50 culminates in an Order to cancel the lease, the activities will have to be stopped. Needless to say that before taking a call by the respective authorities, the petitioners, as also, the 9th respondent be afforded with an opportunity of being heard. The 9th respondent will produce a copy of this judgment before the competent authorities for compliance. Upon consideration based on Rule 68(2) and Rule 50, necessary Orders shall be passed by the competent authorities within the time frame stipulated above.

19. Let the writ petition be kept pending, in view of the other reliefs sought for in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the 9th respondent would submit that certain granites which have already been extracted is lying in the property, and that the movement permits have been issued till 30.09.2025. The same may be permitted to be removed, is the request made by the learned counsel for the 9th respondent. This Court directs the Geologist to conduct an inspection to the quarry of the 9th respondent to ascertain the extent of granite stone, which has already been extracted and liable to b