Back
2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 45031
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, J
M.C.MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST – Respondent
WP(C)/18841/2015
SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
Individuals are exempt from requiring a mining permit for weathered rock extraction for residential purposes under the Minor Mineral Rules of 2015, pending notification of competent authority.
Headnote:
Mineral - Quarrying Operations - Minor Mineral Rules of 2015 - Section 106 - The court emphasized that quarrying for residential purposes is exempt from permit requirements, directing authorities to facilitate extraction while ensuring compliance with newly established regulation standards.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were unable to extract weathered rock for construction due to refusal from local authorities, citing lack of notification under new rules. The court examined the situation and relevant regulations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that despite the new rules not being fully implemented, the petitioners were entitled to quarry for residential purposes without needing a permit, provided they informed the competent authority and determined royalty.
Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioners could quarry weathered rock under the Minor Mineral Rules of 2015 despite procedural uncertainties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the petitioners had a right to extract materials for residential construction under the exemptions in the Minor Mineral Rules, provided they collaborate with the designated authority based on previous regulations.
Final Decision: The petitioners' writ petition was disposed of favorably with directions for the authority to facilitate quarrying.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are aggrieved with the fact that the petitioners are unable to remove weathered rock and rock for the construction of the building, which is permitted by Exhibit P4 issued by the Local Self Government Institution. The petitioners approached the Geologist, the 1st respondent herein, with Exhibit P5 intimation, as is provided in Rule 106 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules , 2015 [for brevity “Minor Mineral Rules of 2015”], as intimation of the quarrying operation for residential purpose and for issuance of O(A) Form. The 1st respondent, however, refused to accept the same on the ground that no Officer has been notified as per the new Rules of 2015.
2. This Court had considered a similar case in Exhibit P6 and issued appropriate directions. Following the above precedent, the respondent is directed to accept Exhibit P5 and then inspect the property to verify the quantity that would have to be removed from the property. Subsequent to such inspection, the petitioners would be permitted to extract the weathered rock and rock; and stack it in the property itself, for determination of royalty.
3. The petitioners express their inability to have made such a prior intimation, to the competent authority, since no officer has been notified as the competent authority under the Rules of 2015. However, it is the admitted case that the 1st respondent, the District Geologist, was the notified officer as per the earlier Rules, who was competent to determine the royalty and issue transport passes as per the Minor Mineral Rules of 1967 under Form P.
4. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that a permit is insisted by the 1st respondent only since the Government had brought out a Government Order by which transport of weathered rock and rock was permitted for residential buildings even without a permit and the National Green Tribunal had stayed that Government Order.
5. To understand the situation, a brief statement of the background facts is necessary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the issue of mining permits issued and the impact it had on the environment inDeepak Kumar and Others v. State of Hayana & Others [(2012) 4 SCC 629]. Certain guidelines were issued, which were declared to be operative till the respective States framed Rules under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act , 1957. It was in pursuance of such directions that a Government Order was issued by the Environmental Department of the State, which had been stayed by the National Green Tribunal. It is in view of such stay order that the Department of Geology had been insisting for permits even for quarrying minor minerals for carrying out residential constructions.
6. What is relevant is, the bringing into force of the Minor Mineral Rules of 2015 on 07.02.2015. In the context of the above Rules having come into force, the quarrying of weathered rock and rock for residential purposes, as is the case in the present writ petition, is exempted under Rule 106 of the Minor Mineral Rules of 2015. But, however, a person intending to carry on such construction activity has to inform the competent authority under the Rules as to the construction to be carried on in the land and also satisfy the royalty as determined under the Rules. There is an obvious stalemate as of now, since the Competent Authority under the Minor Mineral Rules of 2015 has not been notified by the State. In such circumstance, prejudice would be caused to the individuals who intend to carry on such quarrying operations, since no officer is designated; to whom prior intention of quarrying can be given. Prejudice is also caused to the State, insofar as no machinery is available for determination of the royalty as per the Rules.
7. Considering the entire circumstances as also the fact that the Rules were introduced only on 07.02.2015, this Court would direct the 1st respondent, Geologist, who was the notified officer as per the Minor Mineral Rules of 1
