IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25480 of 2009(D)
1. SHINTO SIMON,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF MINING & GEOLOGY,
3. THE GEOLOGIST,
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
6. THE TAHSILDAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :16/09/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.
—————————————-
W.P.(C) Nos.25480, 25514, 25540, 25546, 25548,
25551, 25553, 25554, 25578, 25608, 25609,
25618, 25628 & 25670/2009
—————————————-
Dated 16th September, 2009
Judgment
Heard Sri.Saiby Jose Kidangoor, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners and Sri.C.P.Sudhakara Prasad, the learned
Advocate General appearing for the respondents.
2. Common question arises in these writ petitions. They were
therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common
judgment. The petitioners in these writ petitions had applied for and
were granted, quarrying permits under the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Kerala Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. The quarrying permits were issued
by the Geologist concerned on various dates in the month of July,
2009. Before the permits were issued, the Government of Kerala
had amended the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 by
incorporating a stipulation to the effect that every application for
grant or renewal of quarrying permit in respect of minor minerals
mentioned in item (2) of Schedule I appended to the Rules for any
types of mines should be accompanied by a no-objection certificate
W.P.(C) No.25480/2009 & connection 2
from the District Collector concerned. The amendment came into
force on 12.3.2009, when the notification was issued and published
in the Offiicial Gazette dated 18.3.2009. It is not in dispute that it
was without the production of the no-objection certificate from the
District Collector that the petitioners in these writ petitions were
granted quarrying permits. Shortly after the permits were issued,
by separate orders passed on 28.8.2009, the Geologist of Idukki
district cancelled the quarrying permits issued to the petitioners.
The said orders are under challenge in these writ petitions.
3. The petitioners contend that under the Rules, a quarrying
permit can be cancelled only with notice to the holder of the permit
and that as the said procedure was not followed in the cases on
hand, the orders impugned in these writ petitions are liable to be
set aside and the petitioners permitted to continue to operate their
quarrying permits. The learned Advocate General appearing for the
respondents submits on instructions that before the quarrying
permits were issued to the petitioners in these writ petitions, the
petitioners did not move the District Collector for grant of no-
objection certificate and that was primarily the reason why the
District Collector directed the Geologist to cancel the permits. The
learned Advocate General also brought to my notice the directions
W.P.(C) No.25480/2009 & connection 3
issued by a learned single Judge of this Court in the judgment
delivered on 25.6.2009 in W.P.(C) No.8452 of 2009. The learned
Advocate General submitted that this Court had by the said
judgment directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to ensure that
sand is not extracted from paddy fields.
4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the
learned counsel appearing on either side. It is not in dispute that
the petitioners had not obtained the requisite no-objection
certificate from the District Collector as required under sub-rule (5)
of rule 5 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 before
they applied for the grant of quarrying permits. The amendment to
the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, insisting on the
production of a no-objection certificate from the District Collector
concerned, came into force on 12.3.2009. The quarrying permits in
these writ petitions were issued on various dates in July, 2009.
Therefore, the quarrying permits were not issued to the petitioners
after following the prescribed procedure. In such circumstances, I
am of the opinion that mere failure of the Geologist to issue notice
to the petitioners would not vitiate the orders passed by him
cancelling the quarrying permits. The Apex Court has in M.C.Mehta
v. Union of India and others (JT 1999 (5) SC 114) held that failure to
W.P.(C) No.25480/2009 & connection 4
issue notice will not vitiate an order if no conclusion other than the
one arrived at in the impugned order is possible on the facts of the
case. In the instant case, the petitioners did not admittedly obtain
no-objection certificates from the District Collector concerned and
therefore the grant of quarrying permits to them was not in order.
For that reason alone, the quarrying permits issued to the
petitioners were liable to be cancelled or revoked. The failure to
issue notice to the petitioners before cancelling their quarrying
permit cannot therefore be put forward as a ground to seek
invalidation of the impugned orders. I therefore find no ground to
interfere with the orders impugned in these writ petitions.
The writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed.
However, I make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way
of the petitioners from moving the District Collector for the grant of
no-objection certificate as stipulated in sub-rule (5) of rule 5 of the
Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 and that in the event
of the petitioners moving the District Collector for the grant of no-
objection certificates, the District Collector shall consider such
requests and take a decision thereon in accordance with law. I also
clarify that in the event of the District Collector granting a no
objection certificate, it will be open to those petitioners who are
W.P.(C) No.25480/2009 & connection 5
issued a no objection certificate to move the Geologist for the grant
of a fresh quarrying permit.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
vaa