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

2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 16597

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, J
TOMY ABRAHAM – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 23849/2016



The ruling clarifies that quarry licensees with crusher units can adjust previously paid consolidated royalties against current dues, following the specific provisions in the KMMC Rules.

Headnote:

Quarrying - Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules - Section 48P, Schedule IV - The court affirmed the entitlement of the petitioner to an adjustment of previously paid consolidated royalty against current dues under KMMC Rules, emphasizing the provisions allowing licensees with crusher units to exercise options for royalty payments.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the refusal to consider their application for registration as a 'Registered Metal Crusher Unit' based on previous payment of consolidated royalty amidst a stoppage order during the financial year 2013-14.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner’s consolidated royalty payment made for 2013-14 could legitimately be adjusted against the current year's dues since quarrying operations were not conducted during that period, aligning its decision with KMMC Rules.

Issues: The key issues were whether the petitioner could offset previously paid consolidated royalty against current royalty obligations and if the refusal to register the unit violated legal provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that licensees with crusher units under KMMC Rules retain the right to pay consolidated royalties, reinforcing the interpretation of Rule 48P allowing offsets for their actual quarrying activity.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, permitting the registration and royalty adjustment as per KMMC Rules.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who had been issued with a quarrying lease as per Exhibits P1 and P2 for different periods, is aggrieved with the refusal of the respondents to consider Exhibit P18 application for grant/renewal of registration as “Registered Metal Crusher Unit” for the year 2016-17. The refusal to consider, was obviously for reason of the petitioner having sought a set off for the consolidated royalty amounts paid as per Rule 48P under Schedule IV of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules , 1967 [for brevity “KMMC Rules of 1967”]; for the year 2013-14. The petitioner's contention was that the petitioner was not able to carry on quarrying operation in the said year and, hence, the amounts paid by the petitioner has to be adjusted in the present year. The petitioner expresses his willingness to pay the enhanced amounts required as per the , 2015 [for brevity “KMMC Rules of 2015”]; which also prescribes for payment of consolidated royalty for quarry owners having crusher units, but at a higher rate.

2. The petitioner had obtained quarrying lease for different periods, between 06.09.2011 and 02.09.2021 and between 08.02.2010 and 07.02.2022, evidenced by Exhibits P1 and P2. During the close of the financial year 2012-13, the District Collector issued a prohibitory order under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directing stoppage of both the quarries of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent is also said to have issued a stop memo pursuant to the order issued by the District Collector. The petitioner approached the District Collector and produced the required licenses and permissions; upon which the District Collector vacated the prohibitory order and granted a No Objection Certificate as per order dated 03.10.2013. However, at that point of time the petitioner did not have a valid licence from the Panchayat, the renewal of which was applied for.

3. The Panchayat declined the grant of D&O Licence, which was challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition, in which Exhibit P8 judgment was passed. This Court noticed the various decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and found that the quarrying lease of the petitioner having been issued prior to

18.05.2012 {the date of EIA notification which mandated such quarrying lease even for quarrying permits of an extent of less than five acres as directed in Deepak Kumar and Others v. state of Haryana & Others [(2012) 4 SCC 629]}, there was no requirement for an Environmental Clearance {EC}. Despite that, it was also found that the petitioner has also obtained an Environmental Clearance and considering all these, in Exhibit P8 a direction was issued deeming the licence to have been granted for the year 2016-17. The licence was also issued as per the directions in Exhibit P8, evidenced at Exhibit P9.

4. On the strength of the licence issued by the Panchayat and the Environmental Clearance for quarrying licence, the petitioner prayed for registration of the crusher unit and for payment of royalty as per Exhibit P18. Admittedly the petitioner had not carried on any quarrying operations in the financial year 2013-14; for which he had paid a consolidated royalty of Rs.3 Lakhs as per the KMMC Rules of 1967. The audit report of the auditor attached to the office of the 1st respondent is produced as Exhibit P15. Exhibit P15 indicates that as on 23.03.2013, there was a closing stock of 5,0354.500 tonnes of granite stones, which was ready for transportation and for which consolidated royalty was paid for the year 2012-13. The payment of consolidated royalty is also evident from Exhibit P15, which indicates that the petitioner had paid Rupees Six Lakhs for the period between 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2014; a two year period. The transportation of materials as per the royalty payment is also evident from Exhibit P15 report, which indicates that P-Forms were issued for transportation of the quarried mineral from the crusher unit between 02.04.2012 to 23.03.2013; of 60,650

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top