G.K. Granites Private Limited v. State of Kerala & Ors. (WP(C).No.30579/2019 (V) & WP(C).No.25746/2018)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.30579 OF 2019(V)** ## **PETITIONER:** **G.K.GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED, VELLAVOOR, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O., KUNNATHUNAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 562,** **REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. GEORGE ANTONY.** **BY ADV. SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DEPUTY SECRETARY AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GOVERNMENT PRESS P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, KUNNATHUNAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PINCODE-683 556.** - **3 THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT MINING AND GEOLOGY, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM COLLECTORATE P.O., PIN CODE-686 002.** - **4 THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT KERALA, (FINAL APPELLATE AUTHORITY), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GOVERNMENT PRESS P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **5 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, CHANGANASSERY, PIN-686 101.** - **6 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.** **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **2** **7 C.M.MATHEW AGED 59 YEARS CHAKKITTAMURIYIL HOUSE, INDUSTRIAL NAGAR P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM- 686106** ## **R1-6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **R7 BY ADV. K.C.VINCENT** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **GP K.J.MANURAJ** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).25746/2018(P), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.25746 OF 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **C.M.MATHEW CHAKKITTAMURIYIL HOUSE,INDUSTRIAL NAGAR.P.O,CHANGANASSERY,KOTTAYAM-686106.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ROY CHACKO SRI.K.C.VINCENT** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **3 THE GEOLOGIST OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,KOTTAYAM-686001.** - **4 THE TAHSILDARRECORDS TALUK OFFICE CHANGANASSERY-686101.** - **5 THE TALUK SURVEYOR TALUK OFFICE,CHANGANASSERY-686101.** - **6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VELLAVOOR,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686001.** - **7 G.K.GRANITES LIMITED KIZHAKKAMBALAM.P.O,ERNAKULAM-683582,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,SRI.GEORGE ANTONY.** - **8 GEORGE ANTONY KUREECKAL** **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **4** **HOUSE,KIZHAKKAMBALAM,KUNATHUNADU.P.O,ERNAKULAM683582.** **9 ADDL.R9.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM.** **R1, R7 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE ABRAHAM R1-6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).30579/2019(V), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **5** ## **JUDGMENT** **(WP(C).30579/2019 & WP(C).25746/2018)** **Dated this the 5th day of December, 2019** These two writ petitions have been considered together on account of the analogous nature of the factual circumstances presented and because the prayers, made by the parties on rival sides are opposing each other. 2. While WP(C)No.30579 of 2019 has been filed by company G.K.Granites Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Company” for short), stated to be registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, asserting that they are entitled to continue with the quarrying operations as per the Quarrying Lease granted to them by the competent Authority; WP(C)No.25746 of 2018 has been filed by a certain Sri.C.M.Mathew alleging that the Company is carrying on quarrying activities in violation of the Quarrying lease and and in an area which is **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **6** in excess of what has been granted therein; thus praying that the said lease be cancelled and necessary action be taken against all responsible persons, including the company. 3. I have heard Sri.James Koshy, learned Counsel appearing for the Company in WP(C)No. 30579 of 2019; Sri.K.C.Vincent, learned counsel appearing for Sri.C.M.Mathew in WP(C)No.25746 of 2018; Sri.Jose Abraham, learned Counsel appearing for the Company in WP(C) No.25746 of 2018 and Sri.Manuraj.K.J, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents in both cases. 4. Sri.James Koshy, learned counsel for the Company in WP(C)No. 30579 of 2019, began his submissions contending that, going by Ext.P22, the allegations of Sri.C.M.Mathew made in WP(C)No.25746 of 2018 are completely untenable, since the competent Tahsildar has certified that the quarrying activities are being carried on by his client exclusively within the area under the **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **7** Mining Lease. In fact, noticing the afore submissions of Sri.James Koshy on 15/11/2019, and since the official respondents and Sri.C.M.Mathew had opposed the veracity of the statements in Ext.P22 proceedings of the Tahsildar produced in WP(C)No.30579/19, I had initiated the following order: **“ Sri.James Koshy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in view of Ext.P22 report of the Tahsildar, the statements in Ext.P20, issued by the Geologist, are not tenable.** **In response, the learned Government pleader submits that the Geologist has not been able to confirm whether the report of the Tahsildar, namely Ext.P22, is credible and therefore, that a 'breathing time' may be given to him to do so.** **Since I notice that the only reason in Ext.P20 is that the boundary of the quarry has not been marked properly which, however, appears to be prima facie not correct on account of Ext.P22 report of the Tahsildar, I deem it appropriate to issue an interim order allowing the petitioner to continue with his activities, however, strictly in terms of Ext.P22 and the Geologist will be at liberty to inspect the quarry, either today or tomorrow and ensure that Ext.P22 has been complied with and if it is found to the contrary, notify the petitioner appropriately and to inform this Court by the next posting date.** ## **List this case for further consideration on 20.11.2019”** Subsequently, I considered this matter on 22/11/2019, on which day, wherein a further order **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **8** was issued in the following manner: **“The learned Government Pleader asserts that the boundary fixed by the petitioner, which has been recorded in Ext.P22 proceedings of the Tahsildar produced along with W.P. (C)No.30579 of 2019 does not appear to be correct, even going by the plan and sketch produced by him. He says that, therefore, the Geologist, along with the Tahsildar and such other competent Authorities, is in the process of identifying the boundary properly and that necessary instructions will be given to the petitioner to fix the same thereafter.** **Taking note of the afore submissions, I direct the Geologist, the Tahsildar and the Taluk Surveyor to cause a joint inspection of the property, where the quarrying activities are being done, and fix the boundary as per the plan and permit granted to the petitioner and report before this Court not later than 28/11/2019.** **List on 29/11/2019”** 5. Pursuant to the afore directions, a memo has been filed by the learned Government Pleader, dated 20/11/2019, enclosing the report of the joint inspection conducted by the Geologist, along with a copy of the Quarrying Lease dated 27/8/2016. When one examines the afore joint inspection report, it becomes obvious that it has been found that the area in which the quarrying activities were going on and fixed by the Tahsildar, through Ext.P22 in WP(C)No.30579 of 2019, was in error and that the boundaries **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **9** have now been re-fixed. Ineluctably, therefore, the allegations of Sri.C.M.Mathew in WP(C)No.25746 of 2018 becomes justified. 6. The axiomatic question, therefore, is whether the mistake which led to re- fixing of the boundary by the Geologist, in terms of the joint inspection report, was deliberate or inadvertent. Of course, while the Company says that the boundaries were fixed by the concerned Geologist and the Tahasildar in terms of law, which is evident from Ext.P22 in WP(C)No.30579 of 2019; and therefore, that if there is any mistake in having done so, his client cannot be held responsible, because he was only acting as per lawful instructions and orders issued to him, while conducting the quarrying operations. Sri.James Koshy, therefore, prays that his client be allowed to now carry on the quarrying activities, as per the permit given to him, **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **10** within the boundaries now fixed and delineated by the joint inspection, as is evident from the present report. 7. In opposition to the above, Sri.K.C.Vincent-learned counsel appearing for Sri.C.M.Mathew, submits that the incorrect fixing of the boundary earlier cannot be found to be an ordinary mistake inadvertently committed by the Tahsildar and that legitimate suspicion will have to be read into it, because Company had made extensive quarrying from the area in which they had no right to do so under the Quarrying Lease. He says that the Company had, in fact, encroached into the properties of Sri.C.M.Mathew and extracted large amounts of granite, which he says must lead to a proper accountability and investigation fixing responsibility on all the persons found culpable. Sri.Vincent, therefore, prays that WP(C)No.25746 of 2018 be allowed and the Quarrying Lease granted to the Company be set aside on account of the admitted violations **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **11** committed by them. He adds that going by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Common** **Cause v. Union of India** [2017 (3) KLT 927 (SC)],the Environmental Clearance granted to the Company is also liable to be cancelled. He prays that this Court, therefore, issue appropriate orders for such purpose forthwith. 8. Sri.Jose Abraham learned counsel appearing for the Company in WP(C)No.25746 of 2018, in answer to the afore submissions of Sri.K.C.Vincent, submits that the allegations made against his client are wholly untrue because, as has been already stated by Sri.James Koshy, the Company had acted strictly within the boundaries of the sanction granted to them and within the area found entitled to be quarried as is evident from Ext.P22 WP(C)No.30579 of 2019. He asserts, therefore, that the mistake, if any, in the delineation of the boundary as per the Quarrying Lease cannot be attributed to the Company, adding that if the competent Authority **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **12** directs them, they are willing to pay all necessary payments, regarding royalty and seignorage for the excess quantity of minerals extracted by them, which he says has been done only inadvertently and without any specific intend to do so. 9. The learned Governor Pleader, Sri.Manuraj.K.J, in answer to the afore submission of the rival parties, submits that, as is evident from Ext.P22 produced in WP(C)No.30579 of 2019, a mistake appears to have been committed by the Tahasildar while fixing the boundaries of the property of the company as per the mining lease. He says that this is clear from the fact that Ext.P20 requisition in WP(C)No.30579 of 2019 had, in fact, been made by the Geologist asking the Tahsildar to fix the boundaries and that it is pursuant to which Ext.P22 order in the said writ petition has been issued by the Tahsildar. The learned Government Pleader further submits that since the report of the Geologist presently **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **13** available on record clearly show that the boundaries where wrong and since the same have now been re-fixed, the Director of Mining and Geology is willing to hear all sides and take a final decision as to their respective claims and contentions, particularly that of Sri.C.M.Mathew that further action is required to be taken with respect to the Mining Lease and Environmental Clearance obtained by the Company. He however, prays that this Court may not enter into an affirmative consideration of these aspects because, this will require an assessment of factual factors especially as to whether any mistake had been committed inadvertently or by deliberate action. 10. When I hear the learned Government pleader on the afore lines, I find substantial force in what he says because, if the mistake that led to the boundaries being fixed with respect to the quarrying area, as mentioned in Ext.P22 in WP(C)No.30579 of 2019, was deliberate, **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **14** and then certainly the angle of corruption, involving the Company and the competent Authorities, will certainly have to be investigated into. It is only if the parties are able to establish through cogent and reliable evidence that the mistake was inadvertent and not deliberate, can the Company or the competent Authorities seek to be free of necessary consequences. I am, therefore, of the view that the suggestion made by Sri.Manuraj K.J. must be acceded to, because the most apposite Authority to look into all these aspects is certainly the Director of Mining and Geology, who is also the competent Authority vested with the power to issue Mining Leases as per law. In the afore circumstances and for the reasons above stated, I order these writ petitions directing the Director of Mining and Geology to hear the petitioners in these cases and then take a decision as to the contentions of the rival parties, particularly as to if any **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **15** further action is required to be taken against the Mining Lease and the Environmental Clearance already obtained by the Company after specifically adverting to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Common Cause** (supra). The Director of Mining and Geology will also verify, during the afore process, whether any action is warranted with respect to the officials involved and also whether any reparatory orders are to be issued with respect to the extent that has been quarried by the Company on account of the wrong re-fixing of the boundaries; and to complete such processes as per law, after following due procedure. Further, the Director will also be entitled to make recommendations as to the future course of action to be taken in this regard, at the level of the Government or such other competent Authorities and to complete all such processes as may be found necessary, subject to the applicable Statutes, Rules and Regulations. **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **16** The afore exercise shall be completed comprehensively by the Director of Mining and Geology as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and until which time, though the company will be entitled to continue with their quarrying activities, it will be subject to further orders to be issued by the Director in terms of this judgment- including as to whether the Lease or the Environmental Clearance will require to be cancelled or otherwise. Needles to say, any further quarrying activity being carried on by the Company will be limited exclusively to the area which has now been delimited by the Geologist in the report now filed before this Court and any violation thereof shall be met with all necessary consequences under the law to its fullest extent. **==> picture [347 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** directions above are to be complied with by the **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **17** Director of Mining and Geology, himself without delegating it to any other officer; and that necessary orders shall also be issued by the said Authority alone. **Sd/-** **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** AJM **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **18** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30579/2019** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.1009/DOY/EM/2018 DATED 30.8.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.K 2005/2018 DATED 3.5.2018 OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.98/2000 DATED 21.1.2002 FILED BY THE IST DEFENDANT, THANKAMMA BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHANGANASSERY.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 20.4.2018 OF THE THEN PRESIDENT OF VELLAVOOR GRAM PANCHAYAT.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM WITHOUT ANNEXURE DATED 14.9.2018 FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 14.9.2018 FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE RC NO.2019/3357/05 DATED 14.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 24.6.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.17810/2019 DATED 3.7.2019 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.211/A4/18/INDUSTRIES DATED 2.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF ARGUMENT NOTES DATED 5.7.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER** **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **19** ## **BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION APPLICATION AND AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 15.7.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(MS) NO.677/2019/IND. DATED 19.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.9.2019 IN WP(C) NO.24876/2019 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 5.9.2019 WITHOUT EXHIBITS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY FO THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 5.9.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.10.2019 IN WPC NO.26361/2019 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.11802/M2/2018 DATED 14.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1009/DOY/ML/2018 DATED 3.9.2019 ISSUE DBY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.810/019 DATED 17.9.2019 ISSUE DBY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLAVOOR.** - **EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.E23427/18 DATED 19.9.2019 ISSUED BY THE** **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **20** ## **TAHSILDAR, CHANGANASSERY.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R7 A** COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 10.8.2018 IN WPC NO- 25746 OF 2018 **EXHIBIT R7 B** COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 2.11.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,MANI,MALA. **EXHIBIT R7 C** COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANIMALA TO THE GEOLOGIST DATED 5.11.2019 **EXHIBIT R7 D EXHIBIT R7 E** COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN O.S.348 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF'S COURT CHANGANSSERY. COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO-1375 OF 2009 OF S.R.O., KARUKACHAL **EXHIBIT R7 F EXHIBIT R7 G EXHIBIT R7 H** COPT OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.4.2003 COPT OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 1.7.2008 COPT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 27-82009 IN O.S. 35 OF 2002 ON THE FILE OF SUBCOURT KOTTAYAM **EXHIBIT R7 I EXHIBIT R7 J** COPT OF THE SALE DEED NO-312 OF 200 OF S.R.O.KARUKACHAL COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.5.2019 **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **21** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25746/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**EXT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED**| |---|---| ||**06.09.2016,RELATING TO RE-SURVEY 312/1.**| |**EXT P1(A)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED**| ||**06.09.2016,RELATING TO RE-SURVEY 312/3-1**| |**EXT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LEAS DEED DATED 24.11.2016**| ||**IN FAVOUR FO THE 7TH RESPONDENT**| |**EXT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 10**| ||**DATED 28.09.2016**| |**EXT P4**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT WITH RECEIPT**| ||**DATED 26.02.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT**| |**EXT P5**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.**| ||**(C)NO.9257 OF 2018 DATED 19.03.2018**| |**EXT P6**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT RELATING TO**| ||**INSPECTION ON 28.03.2018 OBTAINED UNDER RTI**| ||**ACT**| |**EXT P7**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE 06.04.2018 FOR**| ||**HEARING ON 16.04.2018**| |**EXT P8**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED**| ||**12.06.2018 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT**| |**EXT P9**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED**| ||**03.04.2018 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| |**EXT P10**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SURVEYOR**| ||**DATED 21.05.2018.**| |**RESPONDENT'S/S**|**EXHIBITS:**| |**EXHIBIT R-7(1)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPPER REGISTER OF THE**| ||**VELLAVOOR VILLAGE**| |**EXHIBIT R7(2)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE**| ||**FORMER PRESIDENT OF VELLAVOOR GRAMA**| ||**PANCHAYATH AND PRESENT MEMBER.**| **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **22** **EXHIBIT R-7(3)** - **TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO. K/2005/2018 DATED 3//5/2018 SUBMITTED THE R.D.O. KOTTAYAM TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.** - **EXHIBIT R7(4) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE QUARRY NO. PCB/KTM/ICO/R2/1208/2012 DATED 24/9/2012 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD** - **EXHIBIT R7(5) TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE-RENEWAL NO./PCB/KTM/ICO/R3/2791/2015/DATED 25/08/2015** - **EXHIBIT R7(6) TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE-RENEWAL NO. PCB/KTM/ICO/R4/4287/2018 DATED 26/3/2018** - **EXHIBIT R-7(7) TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE NO. 94/2015 ISSUED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY(SEIAA).** - **EXHIBIT R7(8) TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED MINING PLAN NO.1286/DOY/ML/2015 DATED 7/5/2015.** - **EXHIBIT R7(9) TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVES LICENSE NO. E/SC/KL/22/574(E2 21409) DATED 20/3/2018 VALID UP TO 31/3/2019.** - **EXHIBIT R7(10) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE VELLAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT FOR QUARRYING PETITION FILED UNDER RULE 153 OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT RULES.** - **ADD.EXHIBIT R7(11) TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE NO. 1009/DOY/EM/2018 DATED 6/4/2018** - **ADDL EXHIBIT R7(12) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 16/4/2018** - **ADDL. EXHIBIT R-7(13) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. 1009/DOY/EM/2018 DATED 16/4/2018** **ADDL. EXHIBIT R-7(14) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 3/5/2018 EXHIBIT R-7(15) TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. 1009/DOY/EM/2018 DATED 20/6/2018.** **WPC.NOS.30579/2019 & 25746/2018** **23** **ADDL. EXHIBIT R7(16) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN 14/7/2018** **ADDL. EXHIBIT R-7(17) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. 1009/DOY/EM/2018 DATED 30/08/2018** **ADDL. EXHIBIT R-7(18) TRUE COPY OF THE STATUORY APPEAL & STATY PETITION DATED 14/9/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. NO. 355/201617/3098/M3/2016 DATED 27-08-2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 2403-2018 EXHIBIT R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 0304-2018.** **EXHIBIT R3(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. E2-3427/18 DATED 04-06-2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** ajm //TRUE COPY// CA TO JUDGE