SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58760

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J
KUNHAMMED – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 48396 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ, SRI.IRFAN ZIRAJ
For the Respondents: SMT VIDYA AC

The court mandates timely consideration of No Objection Certificate applications as per the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules.

Headnote:The petitioner purchased land for his hotel, needing to remove granite to create parking, claiming it does not qualify as mineral winning under Rule 104 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The petitioner applied for a No Objection Certificate but faced delays. The court directed timely consideration of the application. The court ruled that the No Objection Certificate must be addressed within one month if pending.

Table of Content
1. need for no objection certificate for granite removal. (Para 1 , 2)
2. argument for timely consideration. (Para 3)
3. court's direction on application processing. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26th day of December, 2025 The petitioner purchased land along with building and is conducting a Hotel in the said building. The building was constructed after extraction and removal of ordinary earth from the foundation of the building. The parking area of the said Hotel is insufficient for its customers. Hence, the petitioner intended to prepare more parking area after extraction and removal of granite building stone from the property. Without removing the granite building stone it is impossible to park the vehicles. The activity of the petitioner does not amount to winning of any mineral and hence, the activity would come under the purview of Rule 104 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules .

2. For submitting an application before the Government under Rule 104 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules through 2nd respondent, the petitioner has to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the 3rd respondent. Hence, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 application before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent forward the application to the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent submitted a favourable report and recommended for issuance of No Objection Certificate. Even after about one year from the date of submission of the application, the 3rd respondent did not consider the same in spite of repeated requests. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to direct the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P7 application submitted by the petitioner within a reasonable period.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

4. From the pleadings I find that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 application for No Objection Certificate before the 3rd respondent. In the facts of the case, it would be only just and proper that the 3rd respondent considers the same and passes appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a reasonable time.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the

3rd respondent to consider Ext.P7 application and pass orders thereon within a period of one month, if the application is received and pending.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top