2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14953
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
MARY VARKEY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 29512/2011
Quarry operations require valid permits and compliance with regulatory safety standards, which must be strictly enforced to ensure safety and adherence to the law.
Headnote:
Quarrying - Petitioner vs. Quarry Owner - Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967; Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 - The court highlighted regulations governing quarrying operations and the necessity of obtaining valid licenses from necessary authorities before resuming quarry activities.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought cancellation of a quarry permit due to violations of quarrying regulations, claiming that excessive quarrying had endangered her property and safety in the vicinity.
Issues: Whether the quarry owner should be permitted to carry out rectification works without obtaining appropriate permits from relevant authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without valid mining licenses and permissions from the Local Authority as mandated by mining regulations, the quarry owner could not undertake any operations.
Final Decision: W.P.(C). No. 29512/2011 was disposed of, and W.P.(C). No. 14641/2012 was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Since common issues arises for consideration in the above cases they are decided together. Parties are referred as shown in W.P.(C). No. 29512/2011.
2. In W.P.(C). No. 29512/2011 the petitioner, a neighbour of a quarry owner has sought for a direction to the 3rd respondent to take immediate steps to cancel the quarry permit granted in favour of respondents 12 and 13 and also to prevent them from removing the surface earth from their land in large quantities for quarrying the Granite under cover of Ext. P4 to Ext.
P6 permits.
3. The complaint of the petitioner is that she is residing in a property situated in Resurvey No. 571/2 in Block No. 12 of Elakkad Village and she owns a property in Sy. No. 569/2 which is adjacent to the property owned by the 12th and 13th respondents where they were operating quarry unit. It is her case that on account of indiscriminate quarrying from areas which are not permitted under the various licenses issued, it so happened that the depth of the common boundary of the property of the petitioner and that of the respondents 12 and 13 is about 45 meters which according to her is against the norms prescribed for quarrying as available under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules , 1967 and also the Metalliferous Mines Regulations , 1961.
4. W.P.(C) No. 14641/2012 is filed by the 12th respondent of W.P.(C).No. 29512/2011 complaining that despite having all the necessary license/permission from various authorities and also having a valid license from the Local Authority upto 31.03.2012, a stop memo was issued by the Local Authority on 17.02.2012 as Ext. P10 and further they have issued Ext. P12 and P13 on 30.05.2012 taking a stand that his request for continuing the quarrying operations can be considered only after considering the objections of Smt. Mary Varkey, petitioner in W. P.(C) No. 29512/2011. Hence the 12th respondent has sought for directions challenging Ext. P12 and P13 and also for a declaration that the mining can be conducted only with necessary permit issued by the Mines Safety Department of Government of India and the Mining and Geology Department. The 12th respondent in his writ petition has impleaded several quarry owners and has sought for the relief to initiate prosecution against the Secretary of the Panchayath for issuing illegal license to other party respondents.
5. As matters stand now the following factual circumstances are not in dispute:-
(i) By Ext. P5 order dated 24.10.2011, the Director of Mines Safety had informed the petitioner that he had violated Regulation 34(7) r.w. Reg. 39, 106(1)&(2)(a) and 164(1B)(a) r.w.Reg. 160(1) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations , 1961. The requirements was, absence of Manager and statutory officials, that against the permitted height of 6 meters, quarrying was being manually done with a face height varying from 6m to 40m with almost vertical face having loose masses dangerously hanging at a number of places endangering safety of the persons deployed at the bottom of high faces and within the Danger Zone of 300m of the quarry, that there are number of structures in the nearby locality, that no record of blasting is maintained and there is no competent person for blasting. In the result, the said authority directed that the work of quarry shall not be resumed till the defects as mentioned in the said order are rectified to the satisfaction of the Director and the order is vacated.
(ii) Ext. P6 “No Objection” is issued by the Director of Mines Safety in favour of 12th respondent to take up the rectification work provided they complied with requirements as mentioned in the said letter, which reads as under: (i) As proposed by you vide letter No. nil dated 09.02.2012 Mining Mate/a Blaster Certificate holder under the Metalliferous Mines Regulations , 1961 shall be appointed before starting the rectification work and he shall personally supervise drilling, charging and blasting operations in the quarry under over all guidance of the Mana