Saleem vs. State Of Kerala - Kerala High Court, 14 September 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 23RD BHADRA, 1942 WP(C).No.18829 OF 2020(C) PETITIONER: SALEEM, AGED 62 YEARS S/O. LATE MYTHEEN KUNJU, SALEEM QUARRY, NEDUVATHOOR, SALIM MANZIL, NEDUVATHOOR, NEELESWARAM P.O, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM BY ADVS. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SMT.P.S.PREETHA RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2 THE DIRECTOR, MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. 3 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, ASRAMOM, KOLLAM 691 002. 4 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM 691 506 5 THE TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM 691 506 6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE, NEELESWARAM P.O, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM 691 505

W.P.(C) No. 18829 of 2020 ..2.. 7 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, CUTCHERY P.O, KOLLAM 691 013. OTHER PRESENT: GP.SRI.K.J.MANURAJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) No. 18829 of 2020 ..3.. W.P.(C) No.18829 of 2020 -------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner was holding Ext.P2(b) quarrying permit valid till 09.01.2020. Ext.P2(b) quarrying permit was, however, suspended by the third respondent on 23.09.2019 as per Ext.P9 order, alleging that the quarrying operations have been conducted by the petitioner violating the approved mining plan and that it has been found by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau that the petitioner has quarried granite stones in excess of the permissible quantity. Aggrieved by Ext.P9, the petitioner preferred Ext.P13 representation before the second respondent. The stand taken by the petitioner in Ext.P13 representation is that the grounds mentioned in Ext.P9 for suspending the quarrying permit are incorrect and unsustainable. Ext.P16 is the decision taken by the second respondent on Ext.P13 representation. In Ext.P16, it is reiterated by the second respondent that the quarrying operations conducted by the petitioner was violating the approved mining plan. It was, however, stated by the second respondent in Ext.P16 that once appropriate directions are received from the office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, the quarrying permit will be restored. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P16. The specific case

W.P.(C) No. 18829 of 2020 ..4.. of the petitioner in the writ petition is that both the grounds stated in Ext.P9 order to suspend the quarrying permit issued to the petitioner are unsustainable, and the sustainability or otherwise of the grounds taken in Ext.P9 order has not been considered by the second respondent while taking Ext.P16 decision.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

As rightly pointed out by the petitioner, the contention raised by petitioner in Ext.P13 representation that the grounds on which the quarrying permit issued to him was suspended are unsustainable, has not been considered by the second respondent while issuing Ext.P16 communication. As such, even if this court set aside Ext.P16 communication on that ground, it will not serve any purpose now, for the term of Ext.P2(b) quarrying permit has already expired. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to prefer an application before the competent authority for renewal of Ext.P2(b) quarrying permit, and if such an application is preferred by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the competent authority after examining the correctness of the grounds mentioned in Ext.P9 order, if necessary, by calling for the relevant files of the seventh respondent. In the peculiar facts of this case, it

W.P.(C) No. 18829 of 2020 ..5.. is also directed that if the petitioner prefers an application for renewal of the quarrying permit within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, final decision on the same shall be taken by the competent authority within three weeks thereafter. Ordered accordingly. P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE ds 14.09.2020

W.P.(C) No. 18829 of 2020 ..6.. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 THEOF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 04-04-2019 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPEERTY OF THE YEAR 2019-2020 REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN WHICH THE QUARRYING OPERATIONS CONDUCTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 THEOF THE QUARRYING PERMIT NO. 3/18-10/MM/GBS/STP/2235/DOQ/S2/17 DATED 20-06-2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 A THEOF THE PERMIT NO. 11/18- 19/MM/GBS/2235/DOQ/52/17 DATED 22-11- 2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 B THEOF THE PERMIT NO. 8/19- 20/MM/GBS/STP/1898/DOQ S2/19 DATED 10- 07-2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 THEOF THE LICENSE NO. A5- 1878/19/2019-20.75 DATED 03-05-2019 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, NEDUVATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 THEOF THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO. 32COAPS179821ZJ DATED 27-12-2018 ISSUED BY THE OFFICER, GOODS AND SERVICE TAX TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 THEOF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE NO. B/DEIAA/2232/18 DATED 05-04-2018 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM TO THE PETITIONER

W.P.(C) No. 18829 of 2020 ..7.. EXHIBIT P6 THEOF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT NO. PCB/KO/CTO/R4/69/2018 DATED 11-05-2018 ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 THEOF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENSE NO. E/SC/KL/22/1306(E61182) DATED 23- 04-2018 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8 THEOF THE CHELLAN RECEIPT NO. 8 DATED 10-07-2019 REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT TREASURY, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT P9 THEOF THE ORDER NO. 1898/DOQ/S2/2019 DATED 23-09-2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P10 THEOF THE REPORT NO. B5- 23670/2018 DATED 27-11-2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE SKETCH. EXHIBIT P11 THEOF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY PREPARED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 THEOF THE ORDER NO:B5- 23670/18 DATED 14.02.2020 AND SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13 THEOF THE APPLICATION DATED 09.03.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ITS RECEIPT. EXHIBIT P14 THEOF THE APPLICATION DATED 09.03.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND ITS RECEIPT.

W.P.(C) No. 18829 of 2020 ..8.. EXHIBIT P15 THEOF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.03.2020 IN W.P.(C)NO.8539 OF 2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P16 THEOF THE LETTER NO.2967/M4/2020 DATED 07.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.