Betty Biju v. Director of Mining and Geology Directorate of Mining and Geology, Pattom Palace, Thiruvananthapuram & The Geologist, Mining and Geology Idukki District Office, Thodupuzha

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2020 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.14803 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **MRS. BETTY BIJU, AGED 40 YEARS W/O.LATE BIJU AUGUSTINE, PULIYANANICKAL HOUSE, ARAKULAM (PO), IDUKKI DISTRIT - 685 591.** **BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, PATTOM PALACE (P.O.), KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. 2 THE GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY IDUKKI DISTRICT OFFICE MINI CIVIL STATION, THODUPUZHA (P.O.), IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 584.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ::2:: **WP(C).No.14803 OF 2020** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J** . ----------------------------W.P(C).No.14803 Of 2020 --------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of July, 2020. ## **J U D G M E N T** The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows: _The petitioner was the holder of a quarrying permit for mining building stones from 0.9790 hectare of land comprised in Survey No. 55/2, 55/8, 55/4, 56/2 (Block 19) of Kudayathoor Village of Thodupuzha Taluk of Idukki District. The aforesaid permit was issued by the second respondent to the petitioner on 11.07.2019 valid upto 10.07.2020 under the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 after collecting a royalty of Rs. 14,67,984/-. During the currency of Exhibit P1, the second respondent on 05.10.2019 issued a interdictory order stopping the quarry of the petitioner alleging that the petitioner’s quarry is situated at a distance of 7 kilometers from Idukki Wildlife Sanctuary and the same can be permitted only after obtaining clearance from the standing committee for National Board of Wildlife, it is averred. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court and obtained Exhibit P6 judgment whereby this Court extended the benefit of the decision of this Court reported in_ _**2020 (1) KLT 109** (George vs. State of Kerala). Based on_ ::3:: ## **WP(C).No.14803 OF 2020** _Exhibit P6 judgment, the second respondent recalled the interdictory order vide Exhibit P8 on 05.06.2020. The petitioner was able to operate her quarry only for a period of four months even though she paid the entire royalty for mining building stones round the year. When the petitioner filed Exhibit P10 application for renewing Exhibit P1 quarrying permit on 25.06.2020, the second respondent instead of renewing the same has issued Exhibit P10 communication to the first respondent stating that nothing has been stated in Exhibit P7 communication regarding renewal of quarrying permits and whether Exhibit P1 can be renewed for the subsequent years. For want of necessary clarifications from the first respondent, the second respondent is not considering Exhibit P9 application submitted by the petitioner._ ## It is in the light of these factual averments, that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs: - _i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P9 application submitted by the petitioner for renewing Exhibit P1 quarrying permit in the light of the decision of this Honourable Court reported in_ _**2020 (1) KLT 109** (George vs. State of Kerala) and Exhibit P6 judgment;_ - _ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to renew Exhibit P1 quarrying permit for the period covered vide Exhibit P2 Environmental Clearance in the light of Exhibit P6 judgment of this Honourable Court;_ - _iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to clarify to the second respondent that the petitioner is entitled for renewal of Exhibit P1 quarrying permit based on Exhibit P6 judgment passed by this Honourable Court; and_ ::4:: **WP(C).No.14803 OF 2020** - _iv) Issue such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deems fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case._ 2. Heard Sri.Jobi Jose Kondotty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.J.Manu Raj, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was granted Ext.P-1 quarrying permit on 11.7.2019 by the 2[nd] respondent-District Geologist, the validity of which was up to 10.7.2020 and later on 5.10.2019 the petitioner was interdicted from conducting quarrying activity on the ground that his quarry is situated within 10 kilometers of Idukki Wildlife Sanctuary and for want of clearance from the National Board for Wildlife. Subsequently, this Court has rendered Ext.P-6 judgment directing that directions and orders passed by this Court in the judgment in _**George v. State of Kerala**_ [2020 (1) KLT 109] will be applicable in the case of the petitioner as well and it was also ordered and clarified that all directions and orders therein including the time limit stipulated therein shall be adhered to by all the parties concerned. It is pointed out that in view of the direction issued in _**George's**_ case (supra) interdiction from operating quarry would be in force only in case the competent authority takes a decision within time limit mentioned in the said judgment and subject to the said decision and in case the competent authority do not take decision in the matter as ::5:: ## **WP(C).No.14803 OF 2020** directed in the judgment within the time limit stipulated therein then the quarry operators can conduct the quarry notwithstanding the stop memos, but subject to the decision to be ultimately taken by the National Board for Wildlife. That in the petitioner's case abovesaid the total time limit of 82 days for consideration of his case in terms of Ext.P6 has expired and thereafter the 2[nd] respondent-District Geologist has issued Ext.P-8 proceedings dated 5.6.2020 ordering that the stop memo issued against the petitioner earlier will stand revoked and that she can re-start quarrying operations subject to the conditions stipulated in the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, provided he possesses all other statutory licenses, etc. General directions issued in that regard in respect of the compliance of the directions in the judgment of this Court in _**George's**_ case (supra) has also been rendered by the 1[st] respondentDirector of Mining and Geology as can be seen from Ext.P-7 proceedings 23.3.2020. Now the total validity period of the quarrying permit has expired on 10.7.2020. Hence the petitioner has submitted Ext.P-9 application for renewal of quarrying permit on 25.6.2020. The 2[nd] respondent-District Geologist has now sought for clarifications from the 1[st] respondent-Director of Mining and Geology as per Ext.P-10 letter dated 30.6.2020 as to whether quarrying permit granted to the petitioner could be renewed as sought for in Ext.P-9 since no explicit clarifications in that regard are not mentioned in Ext.P-7 directives ::6:: ## **WP(C).No.14803 OF 2020** issued earlier by the 1[st] respondent-Director of Mining and Geology on 23.3.2020. 4. After hearing both sides, it has to be borne in mind that this Court in _**George's**_ case (supra) has held that in case the competent authorities do not takes decision in the matter within the overall time limit mentioned therein then the quarry operators can conduct quarry operations notwithstanding the stop memos but subject to the final decision to be taken by the National Board for Wildlife, etc. The directions and orders rendered by this Court in _**George's**_ case (supra) has also been made applicable in the case of the petitioner as per Ext.P-6 judgment. Hence the respondents themselves have now permitted the petitioner to re-start the quarrying operations in view of the default clause in _**George's**_ case (supra) as can be seen from Ext.P-8 proceedings. Therefore in view of the abovesaid default clause in the judgment of this Court in _**George's**_ case (supra), the said benefit would be applicable not only during the currency of the quarrying permit and if final adverse decision is not taken by the National Board for Wildlife thereafter, then the application for renewal of the quarrying permit could also be considered in accordance with the Rules but any such ::7:: **WP(C).No.14803 OF 2020** renewal so granted will be subject to the final decision that may be taken by the National Board for Wildlife in the case of the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P-6 judgment. In other words, even if the quarrying permit is renewed as sought for in Ext.P-9 application, if ultimately the decision that is taken by the National Board for Wildlife in compliance with Ext.P-6 is adverse to the petitioner, then renewal of such quarrying permit will be subject to that decision and if adverse to him he will have to stop the quarrying operation. In that view of the matter it is ordered that the 2[nd] respondent-District Geologist will take up the matters raised in Ext.P-9 application dated 25.6.2020 for renewal of Ext.P-1 quarrying permit and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner should pass orders therein in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Minor Mineral concession Rules, 2015 without much delay, preferably within a period of 3 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Needless to say, if such a decision so taken by the 2[nd] respondent on Ext.P-9 will be subject to the final decision that may have to be rendered by the National Board for Wildlife as ordered in Ext.P-6 judgment and in _**George's**_ ::8:: ## **WP(C).No.14803 OF 2020** case (supra) [2020 (1) KLT 109]. That aspect of the matter, that decision taken by the 2[nd] respondent on Ext.P-9 application will be subject to final decision to be taken by the National Board for Wildlife in compliance with Ext.P-6 judgment should also be explicitly clarified in the proceedings so issued by the 2[nd] respondent. The petitioner will produce certified copies of this judgment along with copy of the memorandum of Writ Petition with all exhibits before both the respondents for necessary information and further action. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. **Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.** bkn/- ::9:: **WP(C).No.14803 OF 2020** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT DATED 11/07/2019 HAVING VALIDITY UPTO 10/07/2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE GRANTED BY THE DEIAA, IDUKKI TO THE PETITIONER DATED 26/06/2018.** - **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED 03/07/2019 VALID UPTO 26/06/2023 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM LE-3 LICENSE DATED 19/02/2018 HAVING VALIDITY UPTO 31/03/2023 ISSUED BY THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, SOUTH CIRCLE, CHENNAI TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE EXPLOSIVES RULES, 2008.** - **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE TRADE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE KUDAYATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 12/07/2019 FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2020-2023.** - **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09/03/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.4280 OF 2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/03/2020 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 05/06/2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER RECALLING THE INTERDICTORY ORDER FROM OPERATING HER QUARRY.** ::10:: **WP(C).No.14803 OF 2020** **EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR RENEWAL OF EXHIBIT P1 QUARRYING PERMIT FOR THE REMAINING PERIOD COVERED VIDE EXHIBIT P2 ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 25/06/2020.** **EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30/06/2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.**