High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2015-06-12Writ petitions disposed of

Madhavi v. District Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, Ernakulam District; Director, Mining and Geology, Thiruvananthapuram; State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 16643 of 2015 (E); WP(C).No. 17323 of 2015 (E)

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2015-06-12
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions disposed of. Ext.P4 orders directing the petitioner to obtain mining permits are set aside. The District Geologist is directed to conduct a site inspection and fix royalty under the Minor Mineral Rules of 2015, and issue Transit Passes in Form O(A) on the genuineness of the building permit, with the destination specified. Passes to be issued within two weeks from the application, valid for transporting the heaped ordinary earth, and to be surrendered on expiry. The Government Ordinances/Orders that permitted ordinary earth transport without a permit are not to obstruct the process; exemption from SEIAA is allowed in this transitional phase. The case is disposed of accordingly, with the Geologist required to ensure all required information is filled and to verify the authenticity of the claim before Pass issuance.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Madhavi, W/o Ayyappan

Respondents

District Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, Ernakulam District
Director, Mining and Geology, Office of the Mining and Geology, Thiruvananthapuram
State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Government of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. P.M. Ziraj

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Biju Meenattoor (Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two writ petitions, each filed by Madhavi, seek to construct a residential house on property for which she produced a building permit (Ext.P1). The respondents, led by the District Geologist, insisted on obtaining a mineral transport permit under the Kerala Minor Mineral Rules before any earth could be moved, arguing application of the state's mining regulations. The matter unfolds against the backdrop of a Government Order permitting transport of ordinary earth for residential buildings without a separate permit, an order stayed by the National Green Tribunal. The Kerala High Court recounts the adoption of Deepak Kumar v. Haryana (2012) and notes that the Minor Mineral Rules of 2015 came into force on 7 February 2015. The court recognizes a regulatory stalemate: while Rule 106 of the 2015 Rules exempts quarrying of sand for residential purposes, no competent officer had yet been notified to administer it, and royalty could not be determined. In light of this, the court sets aside the extant Ext.P4 orders, directing the Geologist to perform a site inspection, determine royalty, and grant transit passes under Form O(A), subject to the genuineness of the building permit. The passes would be valid only for the declared destination and must be surrendered after expiry. Finally, the court directs exemption from SEIAA clearance in this transitional phase and requires immediate action within two weeks. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015Minor Mineral Rules, 2015Minor Mineral Rules, 1967Kerala Government Order Nos. 12/14 ENVt. dated 15/11/14Kerala Government Order No. 02/14 ENVt. dated 21/2/14Rule 106 of the Minor Mineral Rules, 2015

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that they have valid building permits (Ext.P1) and seek to proceed with residential construction. They argue that the Government Order permitting transport of ordinary earth for residential buildings without a separate permit had been stayed by the National Green Tribunal, creating a regulatory gap. With Minor Mineral Rules of 2015 in force since 07.02.2015, quarrying of sand for residential construction is exempted under Rule 106, but no competent authority has been notified yet, leaving royalty and compliance unsettled. The petitioners request exemption from a separate mining permit, seek exemption from SEIAA clearance in view of the transitional regime, and urge the Geologist to conduct a site inspection, determine royalty, and issue Form O(A) transit passes on the genuineness of the building permit. They seek a swift solution to avoid prejudice and facilitate lawful construction within a two- week frame.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain that regulatory control persists until a competent authority is notified under the 2015 Rules. With the Government Order permitting ordinary earth transport stayed by the NGT, the Geologist should insist on compliance and proper permits, royalty assessment, and a structured transit mechanism. They argue that exemption from NOC or environmental clearances cannot undermine environmental safeguards and that passes under Form O(A) can only be issued after due verification and certification of the construction permit, ensuring the destination is specified, and mandating surrender of passes after expiry. They emphasize the lack of a notified authority and the need to prevent illegal mining, asserting that the transitional regime requires careful application of Rule 106, scrutiny of royalty, and alignment with the Prevention Rules of 2015.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Deepak Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana & Others	(2012) 4 SCC 629	Mentioned Only	Cited as background for Supreme Court guidelines pending state rules; not treated as controlling authority in the present decision.
W.P.(C) No. 12236 of 2015	WPC 12236/2015	Mentioned Only	Referenced as a similar issue decided by this Court; no direct incorporation of its reasoning in the current ruling.

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 Madhavi v. District Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, Ernakulam District; Director, Mining and Geology, Thiruvananthapuram; State of Kerala 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/22ND JYAISHTA, 1937** ## **WP(C).No. 16643 of 2015 (E)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER :** **-----------------------** **MADHAVI, W/O AYYAPPAN, AGED 74 YEARS, CHAMMALAYIL HOUSE, MAZHUVANNOOR VILLAGE, MAZHUVANNOOR P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** **1. THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -682 030** **2. THE DIRECTOR, MINING AND GEOLOGY, OFFICER OF THE MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM , PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001** **3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-06-2015,ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.17323 OF 2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C).No. 16643 of 2015 (E) ------------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **-------------------------------------** - **EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 3/3/15 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, MAZHUVANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH** - **EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 26/3/2015** - **EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN THE WRIT PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10/4/15 IN WPC NO. 12236/2015** - **EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8/5/2015 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER** - **EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.NO.12/14 ENVT. DATED 15/11/14** - **EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.NO.02/14 ENVT. DATED 21/2/14** - **EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF HONOURABLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL DATED 31/3/2015 IN APPLICATION NO.67/15** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** **-----------------------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) Nos. 16643 of 2015 & 17323 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12[th] day of June, 2015 ## J U D G M E N T In both the above writ petitions, the respective petitioners intend construction of a residential house, the permit of which are produced as Ext.P1 in both the writ petitions. The respective petitioners are aggrieved with the order passed by the Senior Geologist at Ext.P4(in both writ petitions) wherein a permit has been directed to be produced as directed by the National Green Tribunal. A similar issue was considered by this Court in the following manner: ## 7. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that a permit is insisted by the 1[st] respondent only since the Government had brought out a Government Order by which transport of ordinary earth was permitted for residential buildings even without a permit and the National Green Tribunal had stayed that WPC.No.16643/2015&17323/2015 : 2 : Government Order. 8. To understand the situation, a brief statement of the background facts is necessary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the issue of mining permits issued and the impact it had on the environment in Deepak Kumar and Others v. State of Hayana & Others [(2012) 4 SCC 629]. Certain guidelines were issued, which were declared to be operative till the respective States framed Rules under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. It was in pursuance of such directions that a government order was issued by the Environmental Department of the State, which had been stayed by the National Green Tribunal. It is in view of such stay order that the Department of Geology had been insisting for permits even for quarrying minor minerals for carrying out residential constructions. 9. What is relevant is, the bringing WPC.No.16643/2015&17323/2015 : 3 : into force of the Minor Mineral Rules of 2015 on 07.02.2015. In the context of the above Rules having come into force, the quarrying of sand for residential purposes, as is the case in the present writ petition, is exempted under Rule 106 of the Minor Mineral Rules of 2015. But, however, a person intending to carry on such construction activity has to inform the competent authority under the Rules as to the construction to be carried on in the land and also satisfy the royalty as determined under the Rules. There is an obvious stalemate as of now, since the Competent Authority under the Minor Mineral Rules of 2015 has not been notified by the State. In such circumstance, prejudice would be caused to the individuals who intend to carry on such quarrying operations, since no officer is designated; to whom prior intention of quarrying can be given. Prejudice is also caused to the State, insofar as no machinery is available for WPC.No.16643/2015&17323/2015 : 4 : determination of the royalty as per the Rules. 2. Considering the entire circumstances as also the fact that the Rules were introduced only on 07.02.2015, as in the aforecited case, this Court would set aside Ext.P4 in both the writ petitions and direct the 1[st] respondent, Geologist, who was the notified officer as per the Minor Mineral Rules of 1967, to conduct a site inspection and fix royalty; on satisfaction of which the petitioner shall be exempted under the Minor Mineral Rules of 2015. The transit pass in Form O(A) under the Prevention Rules of 2015 shall be issued, if a separate application is made to that effect. It is also made clear that since exemption is available to the petitioner herein, there can be no insistence for a clearance certificate from the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (Kerala). 3. In the above facts and circumstances, respondent/District Geologist is directed to issue 'Mineral Transit WPC.No.16643/2015&17323/2015 : 5 : Pass' in Form O(A) of the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015 (for brevity “Prevention Act”], without insisting for 'NOC'/Mining permit; however, the same shall be only on satisfaction of the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner based on the building permit issued by the Local Self Government Institution. It is made clear that the mining passes shall be issued only after the ordinary earth to be transported is stacked in the property which has to be physically inspected by the Geologist. The Geologist shall also issue as many number of passes as there are vehicles required for transporting the heaped quantity of ordinary earth after ensuring that the entire details required in form O(A) is filled up by the petitioner. The petitioner shall also be liable to surrender the passes after the period expires. It goes without saying that the destination to which the ordinary earth is to be taken has to be specified in the passes, before it is issued by the respondent. The above exercise shall be WPC.No.16643/2015&17323/2015 : 6 : done immediately on the petitioner approaching the Geologist, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of such application being filed. Writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge