IMPORTANT POINTS
It is irrelevant, whether a person thereafter obtains a Mining Plan showing a larger quantity of minerals to be extracted or otherwise, since the unequivocal declaration of law is to the effect that the Mining Lease should be the sole document to guide all action for quarrying the minerals and in determining its amount that can be extracted.

JUDGMENT :

The cause in these writ petitions has its genesis in a Bench judgment of this Court in Binoy Kumar Vs. State of Kerala (2019 (2) KLT 227), which has inexorably postulated that the person holding a valid Mining Lease from the Government can only extract that amount of mineral which is specifically permitted under it and no more.

2. The petitioners in these cases, who claim to be holding valid Mining Leases, contend that, notwithstanding the specification of the quantity of the minerals that can be prospected under the said leases, they are legally entitled to extract such quantity of it as is permitted under the Mining Plans approved by the competent Authority under Section 5(2)(b) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). They assert that this contention had not been impelled and consequently, not considered in Binoy Kumar (supra).

3. It is this singular issue which this Court is now called upon to answer in these writ petitions.

4. The petitioners in these cases, which are being heard together on account of the comparable factual matrix presented therein and the similarity in the reliefs sought, are stated to be persons and entities involved in the activity of granite quarrying, based on valid Mining Leases; and all of them, except the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21196 of 2019, assert that they are doing so on the strength of valid Environmental Clearances.

5. The petitioners impugn the orders and instructions issued by the Director of Mining and Geology notifying them that they cannot be allowed to extract more quantity of granite than what is sanctioned in their Mining Leases and that they will have to confine their production solely to the quantity as per the said Leases. The petitioners say that these orders and directions issued by the Director of Mining and Geology are illegal and untenable, since they have already obtained duly sanctioned Mining Plans, as per which, much larger quantities have been allowed to be extracted and commensurate royalty paid and accepted by the competent Authorities for such purpose. They, therefore, pray that the impugned orders and directions of the Director of Mining and Geology be interdicted and vacated.

6. In response, the learned Advocate General, Sri.C.P.Sudakara Prasad, instructed by Sri.S.Kannan -learned Government Pleader; submitted that the impugned instructions and orders of the Director of Mining and Geology have been issued strictly in compliance with and in deference to the directions of the learned Division Bench of this Court in Binoy Kumar (supra). The learned Advocate General points out that it has been unequivocally declared therein that by the learned Bench that licencees can be allowed to quarry only that quantity of mineral, as is specifically mentioned in the Mining Leases; and, therefore, that the Director had no other option but to issue the impugned directions and orders.

7. The learned Advocate General, thereafter, submitted that if this court is so inclined, the Government is willing to consider grant of supplemental/additional leases to the petitioners herein, so that the extraction of mineral by them will be in tune with the Mining Plans now obtained by them, which sanctions extraction of a larger quantity of minerals than what has been permitted in the original Mining Leases. He concludes by saying that the Government is willing to adhere to any directions that may issued by this Court in this regard.

8. In response, the various learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions submitted that the directions in Binoy Kumar (supra) would not apply to the facts presented in these writ petitions, because, as is evident from the factual circumstances noticed by the learned Bench in the said case, the petitioner therein had not obtained any approved Mining Plan; and consequently, that the leaned Bench did not have the occasion to consider the impact of such a plan on the exi