Viju Abraham, J.
1. W.P.(C) No.16751 of 2021 is filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent not to finalize the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 notice until and unless the wastage in the quarry is measured by the respondents. W.P.(C) No.11591 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16751 of 2021 seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to issue quarrying permit. W.P.(C) No.8987 of 2024 is filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P1 application for grant of a quarrying lease. W.P.(C) No.9087 of 2024 is filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P1 and P2 applications for issuance of a quarrying lease.
2. The contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16751 of 2021 is that he has been issued with Ext.P1 environmental clearance and Ext.P2 quarrying permit and has been extracting laterite building stone. While so, Ext.P3 show-cause notice was issued alleging that there is illegal extraction of laterite stone to which Ext.P4 reply was submitted by the petitioner mainly contending that since laterite building stones are being extracted and since the quality of the stones in the land was so poor so that 70% of the stones could not be extracted and the wastage is still there near the quarry itself and if that wastage is measured, it could be seen that the petitioner has extracted much less than the permitted quantity. Without considering the contentions taken in Ext.P4 reply and without conducting an inspection, Ext.P5 order was passed consequent to which Ext.P6 demand was raised. Challenging the same petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 appeal before the Government and pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment, the appeal was considered and allowed and the matter was remitted back to the 1st respondent for re-consideration as per Ext.P9 order. After the matter was remitted back Ext.P10 notice dated 29.04.2021 was issued to the petitioner informing that an inspection is being conducted in the property. At the time of inspection of the property by the 1st respondent, the petitioner has specifically requested the 1st respondent to measure the wastage soil collected in the quarry so as to find out the actual wastage, but he refused to do so. Thereupon petitioner has submitted Ext.P11 request in this regard. Therefore seeking a direction not to finalize the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 notice till the request made by the petitioner to measure the wastage in the quarry that the present writ petition has been filed.
3. A detailed a statement has been filed by the 1st respondent wherein it is contended that in W.P.(C) No.282 of 2021, which was disposed of as per Ext.P8 judgment, an interim order was passed by this Court wherein there is a direction issued to the Geologist to hear the petitioner and then to pass final orders in the matter, but the petitioner did not appear before him nor submitted any statement or objection and thereupon the office resumed the proceedings against the petitioner and informed him that his application for renewal of quarrying permit cannot be considered and the environmental clearance issued to the site would stand cancelled. Thereafter as per Ext.P8 judgment Ext.P7 appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P6 demand was directed to be disposed of. The Government as per Ext.P9 order directed the 1st respondent to inspect the site afresh and assess the quantity of laterite building stones and thereupon the 1st respondent’s office inspected the site in the presence of the petitioner on 01.07.2021 after issuing prior notice to him on 03.06.2021. In the inspection it was revealed that the petitioner had proceeded with the illegal mining during the above period in several areas and the depth of mining was 8.1 metres where it was only 7 metres during the period of previous inspection. After the said inspection a fresh notice dated 22.07.2021 was issued to the petitioner as Annexure-R1(a). It is contended that the petitioner wilfully did not produce Annexure-R1(a) notice along with the writ petition though Ext.P11 objection was preferred against the same.
4. In respect of W.P.(C) Nos.8987 of 2024 and 9087 of 2024 it is the contention of the Geologist that the applied area was found to be under the possession of Smt.Souda and Abu Thahir (who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos.16751 of 2021 and 11591 of 2024) and that since an amount of Rs.27 lakhs is due to the Government from one of the land owners in the present application submitted by the petitioner, the Geologist has not forwarded the application to the Director of Mining and Geology for grant of quarrying lease. It is also submitted that further action on the application will be initiated if the land owner Sri.Abu Thahir remits the amount due to the Government towards illegal extraction of laterite building stones.
5. The learned Government Pleader relying on Rule 51(2) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (in short,”Rules 2015”) submits that in any case or class of cases, where any amount is due to Government from any person/firm/association/company on account of mining of minor minerals from any land, no mineral concession under these Rules shall be granted/renewed in the said land to any person/firm/company/association and no mineral concession under these Rules shall be granted/renewed to such person/firm/company/association in any land in the State unless all dues are cleared.
6. I have heard the rival contentions of both sides.
7. The specific contention raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16751 of 2021 is to issue a direction to the 1st respondent not to finalise Ext.P10 till the measurement is taken regarding wastage in the quarry. Though the counter affidavit would reveal that pursuant to the interim order in W.P.(C) No.282 of 2021 the petitioner was directed to appear before the 1st respondent and after adverting to his objection the 1st respondent was directed to pass final orders in the matter, the petitioner did not appear. Thereafter pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment Ext.P7 appeal filed by the petitioner was directed to be considered and the Government by Ext.P9 order set aside the demand and directed to reconsider the matter. Thereafter on 01.07.2021 the site was inspected and found that there was illegal mining after the previous inspection also. Thereupon Annexure-R1(a) notice was also issued to the petitioner which is not challenged in these writ petitions. It is also to be seen that in respect of other writ petitions, a part of the property is owned by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16751 of 2021 and going by Rule 51(2) of the Rules 2015 when any amount is due to Government from any person on account of mining of minor minerals from any land, no minor mineral concession shall be granted or renewed until and unless all dues are cleared. The petitioner relies on Ext.P6 judgment produced in W.P.(C) No.11591 of 2024 wherein this Court has held that the pendency of any proceedings relating to a demand made against the petitioner in respect of another quarry cannot be a reason for non-consideration of the application of the petitioner for another quarrying permit. It is to be noted that the said judgment was delivered on 13.07.2022 and subsequent to the same Rule 51 of the Rules 2015 has been amended as per G.O(P) No.38/2023(ID) dated 31.03.2023 wherein there is an interdiction regarding grant or renewal of any mineral concession if there are dues in respect of any land in the State unless all dues are cleared. In view of the specific condition in Rule 51(2) of the Rules 2015, I am of the view that if amounts are due, no mineral concession can be granted. Therefore Ext.P6 judgment produced in W.P.(C) No.11591 of 2024 cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. Pursuant to the direction issued in Ext.P9 the site was again inspected by the Geologist on 01.07.2021 with due notice to the petitioner dated 03.06.2021. A perusal of Ext.P11 would reveal that though objection was filed to the notice dated 22.07.2021 which is produced as Annexure-R1(a), in view of the interim order granted in W.P.(C) No.16751 of 2021 no further proceedings in the matter has been initiated. It could be seen that in spite of knowledge of issuance of Annexure-R1(a) the petitioner has not chosen to produce the same along with the writ petition and challenge the same. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the above writ petitions are disposed of as follows:
The 1st respondent shall finalise Annexure-R1(a) proceedings with due notice to the petitioner in W.P(C) No.16751 of 2021 after taking into consideration Ext.P11 objection submitted by the petitioner and the contention that a proper measurement of the wastage in the quarry is necessary for a proper adjudication. The said proceedings shall be finalised with notice to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Subject to the outcome of the said proceedings as directed above, the request of the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.8987 of 2024, 9087 of 2024 and 11591 of 2024 shall be considered and disposed of within a further period of one month thereafter, with due notice to the petitioners therein.
