M/S.K.P.GRANITES INDUSTRIES v. State of Kerala and others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Anu Sivaraman
- Judgment Date
- 2021-12-07
- Court Decision / Holding
- There will, accordingly, be a direction to the Panchayat to take up the application for D&O licence submitted by the petitioner and to consider and pass orders on the same, taking note of Ext.P16 clarification. The petitioner shall make available a copy of Ext.P1 as well as the earlier lease deed entered into by the petitioner with the District Geologist on 11.4.2012 before the Panchayat for consideration. The application shall be considered and appropriate orders passed within a period of three weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces the documents as directed above before the Panchayat.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed with directions to the Panchayat to decide the D&O licence application in light of Ext.P16 within three weeks after submission of Ext.P1 and the lease deed; proper documents to be produced before the Panchayat.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- M/S.K.P.GRANITES INDUSTRIES
Respondents
- The State of Kerala
- Karavaram Grama Panchayath
- Secretary, Karavaram Grama Panchayath
- District Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • G. Sreekumar (Chelur)
Counsels for Respondents
- • Biju Balakrishnan
- • K.J. Gisha
- • Ajmal P.
- • Sri. Riyal Devassy, GP
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition challenges the Panchayat’s insistence on a clarification regarding the grant of a Dangerous and Offensive Trade Licence (D&O Licence) for a quarrying unit operated by the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that Ext.P1 quarrying permit was issued on 16-01-2012 by the Director of Mining and Geology, and relies on the principle laid down in All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala (2015) to contend that Environmental Clearance (EC) is not required for quarries under 5 hectares where mining permits/leases were issued before 18-05-2021. The Panchayat sought clarification from the Director of Panchayats, which was referred to the Director of Mining and Geology; Ext.P16 appears to clarify that EC is required only at renewal, not at initial grant. The respondents contend that the Panchayat’s clarification route was proper and that Ext.P16 should guide the decision. The court ultimately directs the Panchayat to decide the D&O licence application, taking into account Ext.P16, and to consider Ext.P1 and the earlier lease deed (11-04-2012) before the Panchayat, with a three-week deadline for decision after production of documents. The petition is disposed in accordance with these directions.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner asserts that Ext.P1 quarrying permit issued on 16-01-2012 remained valid and that under All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala, EC is not required for such quarries if permits/leases were granted prior to 18-05-2021. Ext.P16 (issued by the Director of Mining and Geology) indicates EC is only required at renewal, not at initial grant. The Panchayat’s request for clarification should be anchored by this clarification, and the Panchayat should grant the D&O licence after producing Ext.P1 and prior lease deed (11-04-2012).
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contend that the Panchayat sought a clarification from the Director of Panchayats and that Ext.P16 clarifies the EC requirement. Documents relied on by the petitioner (Ext.P1, lease deed) were not presented to the Panchayat; therefore the Panchayat could only act on the application and documents before it. The guidance from the Director of Mining and Geology (Ext.P16) should inform the Panchayat’s decision on the D&O licence, with EC considerations arising as per law.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala | 2015 (2) KLT 78 | Positive | Court relies on this Kerala High Court decision to hold that EC is not required for quarries with permits/leases issued before 18-05-2021, if the area is under 5 hectares. |
| Deepak Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others | (2012) 4 SCC 629 | Positive | Used to support the proposition that EC arises only at renewal of the lease, not at initial grant; informs EC eligibility for the quarry permit. |
| Supreme Court judgement in IA No.12-13 of 2011 in Special Leave Petition Nos. 19628 and 19629 of 2009 | IA No.12-13 of 2011; SLP Nos. 19628-19629 of 2009 | Mentioned Only | Exhibit P2 contains a Supreme Court order; cited as background/documentary material rather than central authority. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 M/S.K.P.GRANITES INDUSTRIES 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.