High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-12-01Writ petition dismissed

Crystal Granites Limited v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.19763 of 2020 (U)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date: 2020-12-01
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is dismissed.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Crystal Granites Limited, Chully P.O., Thatttupara, Ernakulam-683581 represented by its Managing Director, George Antony
George Antony, Managing Director, Crystal Granites Limited, Chully P.O., Thatttuppara, Ernakulam-683581

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
Director of Mining and Geology, Directorate of Mining and Geology, Kesavadasapuram, Pattam Palace P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695004
The Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, District Office, Ernakulam, Civil Station, Kakkanad, Kochi-682030
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), K.S.R.T.C Bus Terminal Complex, 4th Floor, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram-695001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Santosh Mathew
• Arun Thomas
• Jennis Stephen
• Vijay V. Paul
• Karthika Maria
• Veena Raveendran
• Anil Sebastian Pulickel
• Divya Sara George
• Jaisy Elza Joe
• Abi Benny Areeckal
• Leah Rachel Ninan

Counsels for Respondents

• S. Kannan
• M. P. Sreekrishnan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Crystal Granites Limited, a granite building stone quarry operator in Ernakulam district, sought judicial intervention to extend its mining rights beyond the term of the original quarry lease. The company held a mining lease under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, which was later replaced by the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. The mining plan, submitted under the 2015 regime, was approved on 28 May 2015. Under the approved plan, the permitted extraction of granite building stones was 370,661.4 metric tons per year, though the Ext.P2 lease deed capped extraction at 25,000 metric tons per year. Following the plan’s approval, movement permits were issued in line with the plan. Ext.P8, issued by the second respondent, stated that the petitioners were not entitled to extract mineral in excess of the quantity in Ext.P2. The petitioners challenged Ext.P8 in W.P.(C) No.17679 of 2019, which led to Ext.P9 directing the competent authority to consider extending the lease for the remaining period of Ext.P2 to align with the approved mining plan. Pursuant to Ext.P9, an additional lease was granted (Ext.P12) for 22 January 2020 to 2 March 2020. The petitioners claim entitlement to extend the lease for the 217-day interim period until Ext.P12. The counter‑affidavit asserts the need to adhere to Binoy Kumar v. State of Kerala and that quarrying beyond lease quantity is impermissible; Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana supports the mining‑plan obligation. The court held that Binoy Kumar binds the petitioners and that Ext.P8 cannot be read as a stop memo, hence the writ petition was dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Concession holder is not entitled to extract mineral beyond the quantity mentioned in the lease (Binoy Kumar v. State of Kerala)
Obligation to obtain mining plan approval for quarrying operations (Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that once the mining plan under the 2015 Rules was approved, they were entitled to extract mineral in quantities approved therein (370,661.4 MT/year) and that Ext.P8’s restriction to the Ext.P2 lease quantity was contrary to the directive rendered in Ext.P9 (W.P. No.17679 of 2019) directing consideration of an additional lease to align with the mining plan. They sought extension of the original lease for the 217-day interim period until Ext.P12 could be executed, asserting that their lawful quarrying was interdicted by Ext.P8. They relied on the subsequent Ext.P9 order and Ext.P12 lease to justify the extension; they argued that environmental clearances and mining approvals under the 2015 Rules created a binding entitlement.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that extraction is controlled by the lease quantity and cannot exceed Ext.P2. They invoked Binoy Kumar v. State of Kerala to justify restricting movement permits to lease quantities and argued that the 2015 mining‑plan regime does not override the lease terms unless an additional lease is explicitly granted. They asserted that the mining plan obligation (Deepak Kumar) means operators must have mining plans, but that does not confer a right to exceed the lease. Ext.P8 is not a stop memo ing that the operator’s entitlement was confined to the lease quantity; extension beyond the lease term would require a formal lease amendment.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana	(2012) 4 SCC 629	Positive	Cited to support the obligation on quarry operators to obtain a mining plan.
Binoy Kumar v. State of Kerala	2019 (2) KLT 227	Positive	Used to hold that concession holders cannot extract beyond the lease quantity; binds the petitioners.
Velu V.K. and Others v. Anil Kumar and Others	2017(2) KHC 911	Mentioned Only	Exhibited as part of the record; not discussed in the court’s reasoning.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Crystal Granites Limited v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.19763 OF 2020(U)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 CRYSTAL GRANITES LIMITED CHULLY P.O., THATTUPARA, ERNAKULAM-683 581, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, GOERGE ANTONY.** - **2 GEORGE ANTONY MANAGING DIRECTOR, CRYSTAL GRANITES LIMITED, CHULLY P.O., THATTUPARA, ERNAKULAM-683 581.** **BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL SMT.DIVYA SARA GEORGE SMT.JAISY ELZA JOE SHRI.ABI BENNY AREECKAL SMT.LEAH RACHEL NINAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTAM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.** W.P.(C) No.19763 of 2020 ..2.. **3 THE GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030.** **4 STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA)** **K.S.R.T.C BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.** **R2-3 BY SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SPL. GP S.KANNAN SRI. M.P. SREEKRISHNAN SC.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-11-2020, THE COURT ON 01-12-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.19763 of 2020 ..3.. ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** ## **-------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(C) No.19763 of 2020** **--------------------------------------** **Dated this the 1st day of December, 2020** ## **JUDGMENT** The first petitioner is a company. The second petitioner is the Managing Director of the first petitioner company. The first petitioner company was operating a granite building stone quarry after securing all the requisite permissions and licences, including a mining lease in terms of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 (the 1967 Rules). Ext.P2 is the mining lease in favour of the first petitioner. Ext.P2 lease was one executed on 03.03.2018 and the same was valid till 02.03.2020. In the meanwhile, when the 1967 Rules was replaced by the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (the 2015 Rules), the first petitioner applied for approval of the mining plan in terms of the 2015 Rules for continuing the quarrying operations. The mining plan submitted by the first petitioner was approved by the W.P.(C) No.19763 of 2020 ..4.. competent authority under the 2015 Rules on 28.05.2015. The quantity of granite building stones permitted to be extracted in terms of Ext.P2 mining lease was only 25,000 metric tons per year, whereas in terms of the approved mining plan, the first petitioner could extract granite building stones to the tune of 3,70,661.4 metric tons per year. Consequently, after the approval of the mining plan, the first petitioner was being issued movement permit for removal of mineral in tune with the approved mining plan. While so, the first petitioner was issued Ext.P8 communication by the second respondent informing them that they are not entitled to extract mineral in excess of the quantity mentioned in Ext.P2 lease deed. The second petitioner challenged Ext.P8 communication before this Court in W.P.(C) No.17679 of 2019, and the said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P9 judgment, directing the competent authority under the 2015 Rules to consider whether additional mining lease could be granted to the petitioners in tune with their approved mining plan. Pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment, the first petitioner was granted additional mining lease for the remaining period of Ext.P2 lease in tune with the approved mining plan. Ext.P10 order is seen issued in W.P.(C) No.19763 of 2020 ..5.. this regard by the second respondent. Pursuant to Ext.P10 order, an additional mining lease was executed between the first petitioner and the State for the period from 22.01.2020 to 02.03.2020. Ext.P12 is the additional lease deed. The case of the petitioners in the writ petition is that since the quarrying activity undertaken lawfully by them was interdicted by the second respondent in terms of Ext.P8 communication till the execution of Ext.P12 additional lease deed namely, 22.01.2020, they are entitled to the extension of lease for the said period namely, 217 days. It is stated by the petitioners that Ext.P21 representation preferred by the petitioners in this regard before the second respondent is not being considered. Hence this writ petition. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent in the writ petition. It is stated, among others, in the counter affidavit that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana** , (2012)4 SCC 629, it was obligatory for the quarrying operators to get the mining plan approved; that since the first petitioner was entitled to extract additional quantity of mineral in terms of the approved mining plan, they were permitted to extract W.P.(C) No.19763 of 2020 ..6.. mineral in terms of the approved mining plan; that in **Binoy Kumar v. State of Kerala** , 2019 (2) KLT 227, it was held by this Court that a concession holder is not entitled to extract more quantity of mineral than what is mentioned in the lease; that in the light of **Binoy Kumar,** Ext.R2(a) instruction was issued by the second respondent to all the Geologists in the State to restrict movement permits in tune with the quantity mentioned in the quarrying leases of all leaseholders; that on 06.06.2019 the petitioners preferred Ext.R2(b) representation against Ext.R2(a) instruction as they were not party to **Binoy Kumar** and that Ext.P8 is the reply sent by the second respondent to the first petitioner informing them that they are not entitled to extract mineral in excess of the quantity mentioned in the lease deed. It is asserted by the third respondent in the counter affidavit that in the light of the decision of this Court in **Binoy Kumar,** the first petitioner was not entitled to extract mineral in excess of the quantity mentioned in Ext.P2 lease deed and they were permitted after the judgment in **Binoy Kumar** to extract mineral in tune with the quantity mentioned in Ext.P2 lease deed till the execution of Ext.P12 additional lease deed. It is also asserted by the W.P.(C) No.19763 of 2020 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** third respondent in the counter affidavit that insofar as the first petitioner was permitted to extract mineral as per their entitlement, Ext.P8 cannot be construed as a stop memo. According to the third respondent, the claim of the first petitioner for extension of the lease is without any basis. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader. 4. The first petitioner has no case that the dictum in **Binoy Kumar** does not apply to them nor that the decision in the said case does not bind them. It is seen that this Court has in fact found in Ext.P9 judgment that the decision in **Binoy Kumar** binds the first petitioner and it is on account of the said reason that this Court directed the second respondent to consider whether the first petitioner could be granted additional lease for the remaining period of their original lease so as to enable them to extract mineral in tune with the approved mining plan. If that be so, the first petitioner cannot be heard to contend that they are entitled to extract more quantity of mineral on the strength of Ext.P2 lease deed than the quantity mentioned therein. The petitioners do not have a case that they were not permitted to W.P.(C) No.19763 of 2020 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** extract mineral in tune with the quantity mentioned in Ext.P2 lease deed. If that be so, Ext.P8 cannot be construed as a communication interdicting the first petitioner from extracting mineral in tune with their entitlement. The writ petition instituted claiming extension of the lease on the premise that the first petitioner was interdicted by the respondents from extracting mineral in tune with their entitlement, in the circumstances, is misconceived. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. **P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE** ds 23.11.2020 W.P.(C) No.19763 of 2020 ..9.. ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.2.2008 (INCORRECTLY TYPED AS 27.2.2007) ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY GRANTING LEASE IN FAVOUR OF THE IST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE DATED 3.3.2008 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND THE IST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE APPROVED MINING PLAN DATED 28.5.2015 APPROVED BY THE GEOLOGIST.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE NO.116/2015 DATED 28.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY IN FAVOUR OF THE IST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENSE OBTAINED BY THE IST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED 20.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE IST PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE D & O LICENCE DATED 12.4.2019 ISSUED BY AYYAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT IN FAVOUR OF IST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 19.6.2019 ISSUED BY DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2019 IN WPC NO.17679 OF 2019.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.1.2020 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY** W.P.(C) No.19763 of 2020 ..10.. - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.10256/M3/2019 DATED 17.1.2020 ISSUED TO THE IST PETITIONER BY THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL QUARRYING LEASE DATED 22.1.2020 EXECUTED BETWEEN TEH STATE GOVERNMENT AND THE IST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.8.2020 SENT BY M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD. TO THE IST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY M/S. ANTECH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY TO THE IST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE CREATORS CONSTRUCTIONS TO THE IST PETITIONER DATED 18.8.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.8.2020 SENT BY CREATORS CONSTRUCTIONS TO THE IST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE ORDER DATED 1.8.2020 SENT BY RAY ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. TO THE IST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE ORDER DATED 12.6.2020 ISSUED BY M/S. KELLER GROUND ENGINEERING INDIA PVT. LTD. TO THE IST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE ORDER ISSUED BY M/S. TARMAT LTD. TO THE IST PETITIONER ON 25.4.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.7.2020 SENT BY M/S. TARMAT LTD. TO THE IST PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY FO THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.9.2020 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE IST AND 2ND RESPONDENT.** W.P.(C) No.19763 of 2020 ..11.. **EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL AND POSTAL RECEIPT OF EXT.P21 REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.9.2020 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONRS TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL AND POSTAL RECEIPT OF EXT.P23 REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN VELU V.K. AND OTHERS V. ANIL KUMAR AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 2017(2) KHC 911.** - **EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.6.2020 IN WPC NO.11224/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT R2(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06/04/2019 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R2(b): A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 06/06/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R2(c): A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/09/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT R2(d): A TRUE COPY OF THE MOVEMENT PERMIT DATED 15/05/2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS.** - **EXHIBIT R2(e): A TRUE COPY OF THE MOVEMENT PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 01/07/2019.** **EXHIBIT R2(f):** **A TRUE COPY OF THE MOVEMENT PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 05/08/2019.** W.P.(C) No.19763 of 2020 ..12.. **EXHIBIT R2(g): A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF E-PASSES DOWNLOADED FROM KOMPAS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 19/06/2019 TO 22/01/2020, PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONERS.** **EXHIBIT R2(h): A TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMARY OF STOCK FOR THE PERIOD FROM 19/06/2019 TO 22/01/2020, DOWNLOADED FROM KOMPAS, PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONERS.**