Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15762
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Kauser Edappagath, J
JITHESH N.E. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 15420/2024
MEENA.A., VINOD RAVINDRANATH, K.C.KIRAN, M.R.MINI, M.DEVESH, ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH, THAREEQ ANVER K., NIVEDHITHA PREM.V, T.KRISHNANUNNI, SENIOR COUNSEL
A trust that has paid penalties and obtained excavation permissions is not required to secure a fresh NOC for transporting materials to a nearby site, but must apply for a transit permit.
Headnote:
Excavation - Temple Trust - Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 - The court ruled that the trust, having paid the necessary penalties and royalties for excavation, is not required to obtain a fresh NOC for transporting stones to a nearby site, but must apply for a transit permit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of a Namboothiri family, sought permission to transport excavated stones from a temple pond to renovate a nearby structure. The trust had already obtained necessary permissions and paid penalties but faced obstacles from authorities regarding transportation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trust had complied with legal requirements by obtaining necessary permissions and paying penalties. It ruled that a fresh NOC was not needed for transportation, but a transit permit was required.
Issues: Whether the trust needs a fresh NOC to transport excavated stones to the Aarattukadavu, given that it has already paid penalties and obtained prior permissions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the trust had already paid penalties and obtained permission for excavation, insisting on a fresh NOC for transportation was unwarranted, although a transit permit was necessary.
Final Decision: The court directed the issuance of a transit permit within three weeks.
The petitioner is a member of Mangalassery Illam, which is an ancient Namboothiri family at Peruvallur in Malappuram District. There is a private temple namely, “Edaparambil Kshethram” owned by the above family in the property owned by the Illam and situated in R.S No.318/8. A trust by name “Edaparambil Kshetra Trust” is formed to manage the affairs of the temple. The trust took a decision to dig a temple pond in the compound of the temple. The trust also took a decision to renovate the “Aarattukadavu” in the Illam compound along with digging the new pond in the temple compound. When the work of digging the pond was going on, the 3rd respondent informed the trust that the laterite stones cannot be excavated without getting permission from him. He directed the trust to get No Objection Certificate from the Sub Collector, Tirur. Accordingly, Ext.P5 No Objection Certificate was obtained from the Sub Collector, Tirur. The trust also paid penalty for the excavation done till then and royalty for the future excavation.
Exts.P6 and P7 are receipts for the payment of penalty and royalty.
According to the petitioner, penalty and royalty were collected from the trust not for digging the new pond alone, but also for taking laterite stones excavated to the “Aarattukadavu” for renovation of the same.
2.Ext.P9 is the order issued by the 3rd respondent granting permission to the trust to excavate the stones for the purpose of digging the pond. In order to remove the excavated stones from the temple pond to “Aarattukadavu”, the trust gave Ext.P10 representation before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur. A similar representation was given to the 3rd respondent on 10.05.2023 which is marked as Ext.P11.
Similar representations were given to the respondents 2 and 3 on 09.04.2024 as well which are marked as Exts.P12 and P12(a). The grievance of the petitioner is that, the respondents 2 and 3 are not taking a decision on the request made by the petitioner to permit the trust to remove the excavated stones from the temple compound and to transport it to the “Aarattukadavu”.
3.I have heard Sri. T Krishnanunni, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. B.S Syamanthak, the learned Government Pleader.
4.The pond is situated in the temple compound and the “Aarattukadavu” is situated in the Illam compound. The trust and the temple committee took a decision to renovate the “Aarattukadavu” in the Illam Compound along with digging a new pond in the temple compound.
5.According to the petitioner, the stones excavated from the temple compound while digging the pond have to be transported to the “Aarattukadavu” for renovating it. The stand taken by the 2nd and 3rd respondents is that, since the “Aarattukadavu” is situated one kilometer away from the temple compound, it cannot be transported without getting a fresh NOC under Rule 104 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules , 2015. They have also taken the stand that petitioner has to obtain the transit permit. I cannot subscribe to the said stand taken by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The penalty as well as the royalty were collected from the trust, as evident from Exts.P6 and P7. The trust is in the process of digging a pond in the temple compound and also renovating the “Aarattukadavu” situated in the Illam compound. The excavation of stones for the purpose of digging the new pond has been done by the trust after obtaining Ext.P9 order from the 3rd respondent.
Inasmuch as the penalty and royalty have been paid by the trust for excavating the stones, the 3rd respondent cannot insist for a fresh permission under Rule 104 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules , 2015 for the simple reason that “Aarattukadavu” is situated one kilometer away from the temple pond. However, the petitioner has to get transit permit to transport the excavated stone to the “Aaraattukadavu” which is situated in the Illam compound. Hence, the petitioner shall file an application for issuance of transit permit
