N. Raveendran v. District Collector, Pathanamthitta and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 WP(C).No.6895 of 2013 (I) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------- N.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 63 YEARS S/O SHRI.NARAYANAN RESIDING AT KALIYARAKUNNUMPURATHU HOUSE, VAYALA P.O. ADOOR, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ADUR TALUK. BY ADV.SRI.N.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. 2. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DISTRICT OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. 3. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE, KESAVADASAPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1009-2013 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.10395 OF 2013, THE COURT ON 10/12/2013 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **APPENDIX TO W.P.C.NO.6895 OF 2013** ## PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 6.7.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 4.4.2012. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 13.3.2012. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.12.2010 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.36505 OF 2010. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.11.2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WRIT PEITION (CIVIL) NO.29057 OF 2011. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.5.2012 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.9424 OF 2012. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.12245 OF 2012 DATED 18.6.2012. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE AUTHORITIES DATED 1.10.12. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION GIVEN BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER, GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT DATED 11.9.2012. EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE DEALER'S LICENCE ISSUED TO SHRI. PRAKASH. EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.29323 OF 2012. EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.12244 OF 2012 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.2.2013 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P14: R COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST DATED 9.7.2012 SHOWING THE ISSUE OF PERMIT FOR MINING TO SHRI MANU S. EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE GEOLOGIST, KOTAYAM DATED 24.7.12. EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.14482 OF 2012 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P17:TRUE COPY OF THE DEALER’S LICENCE NO.9/201314/MM/OS/DL/1172/DOPTA/M/2012 DATED 19/4/2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J** ## *** * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.Nos.6895 of 2013 and 10395 of 2013 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10[th] day of December 2013 ## **J U D G M E N T** W.P.C.No.6895 of 2013 is filed challenging Ext.P13 order passed by the Geologist rejecting an application for renewal of licence by exercising power under the Kerala Minor Mineral concession Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). This order came to be passed pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in W.P.C.No.12244/2012. 2. The facts involved in the above case would disclose that the petitioner obtained Ext.P1 licence dated 06/07/2011 for a period of one year for selling and stocking ordinary sand. Though an application was submitted for renewal of licence, the 3[rd] respondent refused to renew the same. Later, as per directions issued by this Court, the Geologist was directed to consider the application. Since the application of the petitioner was not considered, he filed W.P.C.Nos.6895 & 10395/13 2 an interlocutory application in W.P.C.No.12244 of 2012 in which by judgment dated 29/01/2013, the Geologist was directed to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the relevant materials. Ext.P10 is the judgment pursuant to which Ext.P13 order was passed. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the reason stated by the Geologist for refusing licence was the intimation received from the District Collector to refuse licences, which order was stayed by this Court. It is contended by the petitioner that rejection of licence can be made only as per Rule 48D of the Rules and in the absence of any circumstances mentioned therein, Ext.P13 is bad in law. Hence the petitioner seeks for the relief as sought for and further for a direction to issue licence to the petitioner. 3. An affidavit is filed by the 2[nd] respondent inter alia stating that by Ext.P3 order, the District Collector has specifically directed the 2[nd] respondent not to renew any of the licences of ordinary sand as there are large number of W.P.C.Nos.6895 & 10395/13 3 complaints regarding the illicit trade of river sand under the pretext of dealer's licences for ordinary sand. Reference is also made to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.C.No.12245 of 2012 in which it is inter alia stated that the Geologist will have to obtain the view of the Revenue Department headed by the District Collector as well as the Police Department. With reference to the licences granted to certain other persons, it is indicated that the same were granted strictly as per the directions of the High Court. Licences were given to Sri.Manilal and Sri.J Praskash as per the direction in Ext.P7 judgment. When a hearing was held for reviewing such licences, it was observed that grant of such licences would result in illicit trade of river sand. Hence an order was passed to stop the activities based on the dealers licence already granted by the 2[nd] respondent. It is therefore contended that since there was possibility of illicit trade of river sand collected from Achanckovil, Kallada and Pamba rivers of Pathanamthitta District under the guise W.P.C.Nos.6895 & 10395/13 4 of dealer's licence, order was passed in terms of Ext.P13. 4. W.P.C.No.10395 of 2013 is filed by a similarly placed person who challenges Ext.P13 an order passed by the Geologist rejecting renewal of dealer's licence for the period 2013-14 on the ground that the District Collector has issued directions not to grant dealer's licence for ordinary sand. The grounds raised in this writ petition are similar to the grounds raised in W.P.C.No.6895 of 2013. 5. Statement is filed on behalf of the 1[st] respondent inter alia stating that a number of complaints were received regarding illegal sand extraction from the stretches of Kallada, Achankovil, Manimala and Pamba in Pathanamthitta District. During a meeting of the Police, Revenue and Other officials, it was observed that appropriate measures are to be taken in the matter and a report was called for. As per the report of the Director of Vigilance & Anti Corruption it is seen that most of the dealer’s licence in the District have been obtained by those connected with illegal sand lobbies. W.P.C.Nos.6895 & 10395/13 5 Mining and Geology department has issued dealer’s licence without obtaining NOC from the Revenue Officials or the District Collector. It is also contended that the illegal sand extraction from the river stretches as stated above had reached alarming proportions and therefore it is thought that appropriate measures are to be taken in the matter. It is, considering all these facts and circumstances, that a meeting was convened by the District Collector on 02/08/2013 and it was unanimously agreed that there is no necessity of 86 sand dealers in Pathanamthitta District especially in the circumstances that sufficient sand is not available in the District for issuance of such number of dealer’s licence. That apart, it is found that there is a frequent misuse of P-forms issued by the Department of Geology in moving and transporting river sand illegally. It is in the said background that an order had been issued on 05/08/2013 clearly indicating the difficulties faced in issuing licences and guidelines have been issued in terms of W.P.C.Nos.6895 & 10395/13 6 Ext.R1(a). As per Ext.R1(a) there is a temporary prohibition for issuing dealer’s licence within the limits of Pathanamthitta district. 7. Having regard to the nature of contentions urged, the question to be considered is whether the Geologist is justified in not renewing the licence of the petitioners. Reference to Ext.R1(a) filed in W.P.C.No.10395 of 2013 would show that sufficient reasons are stated for banning the issuance of licence to persons in Pathanamthitta District. Unless such ban is removed by the Government it may not be possible for this Court to direct the licence to be issued to the petitioners. Only on removal of such ban, it shall be open for the petitioners to apply for fresh licence or for renewal of existing licence if the Rules permit. I do not think that the restriction imposed by way of Ext.R1(a) is either arbitrary or illegal. That apart, this Court has approved the action of the Government in issuing such an order as held in **Gokuldas v. Geologist** _[2009(3) KLT 924]._ W.P.C.Nos.6895 & 10395/13 7 8. The main contention urged by the petitioners is that the reasons stated for rejecting the licences is improper. I do not think so. On a verification of the averments made in the statements filed on behalf of the respondents it is clear that there was large scale illicit trading of river sand and it is presumed that based on the licence issued by the Geologist, necessary preventive measures have been taken as evident from Ext.R1(a), a temporary ban has been issued. Taking into consideration the environmental impact that may be caused on account of large scale removal of river sand, I am of the view that the petitioners will not be entitled to get renewal of licence. Though the Geologist has certain restrictions in terms of Rule 48D, that does not mean that the Revenue Department cannot direct the Geologist not to renew licences especially in view of the special factual circumstances involved in large scale illicit trading of river sand in the river stretches of Pathanamthitta district. W.P.C.Nos.6895 & 10395/13 8 Under these circumstances, these writ petitions are dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall be eligible for applying afresh for licence only after revocation of Ext.R1(a) filed in W.P.C.No.10395 of 2013. (sd/-) **(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)** jsr