Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 50972
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S. SIRI JAGAN, J
V V DINESN – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT ,PALAKKAD – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 5799/2012
Regulation of mining activities falls exclusively under the authority of the relevant permit issuer, limiting police jurisdiction in such matters.
Headnote:
Mining - Permit Validity - Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules - Interpretation of police jurisdiction over mining operations highlighted that only authorized entities can regulate activities under valid permits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner obtained a permit for sand mining but alleges that the police is improperly interfering with these activities, claiming jurisdiction lies solely with the second respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the police can only intervene with written permission from the second respondent if violations occur, affirming the validity of the petitioner's permit.
Issues: Whether the police have the authority to interfere with mining operations that are permitted under the prevailing laws.
Ratio Decidendi: Only the regulatory authority designated by the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules holds jurisdiction over mine operations, while the police's role is limited to enforcing compliance when violations are reported.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed with direction that police shall not interfere with mining unless permitted by the second respondent.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has obtained Ext.P1 permit for mining sand under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that the 1st respondent is unnecessarily interfering with the mining activities of the petitioner in the property covered by Ext.P1 permit. The petitioner submits that the police has no manner of jurisdiction to interfere with such mining insofar as the petitioner holds a valid permit namely Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, if at all only the 2nd respondent can take action in respect of any violation of the conditions of Ext.P1 permit and not the 1st respondent. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:
“i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or
direction commanding the 1st respondent not to interfere
2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the 1st respondent is not in any way interfering with the mining activities but he has powers to intercept transport of sand if it is against the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the police shall not interfere with mining activities of the petitioner in the property covered by Ext.P1 except with the written permission of the 2nd respondent. However I make it clear that if any violation is detected in the transport of sand by the petitioner, it would be open to the police to take appropriate action.
