High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-01-24Disposed of

Raji Mathew and Company Pamplaniyil v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.20464 OF 2019(G)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Amit Rawal
Judgment Date: 2020-01-24
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of; the Government is directed to finalize and implement guidelines for NOC/quarrying lease allocation expeditiously, in line with the court orders of 6 November 2019 and 10 December 2019, and to proceed with follow-up action without prolonged pendency.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Raji Mathew and Company Pamplaniyil

Respondents

State of Kerala
Director of Mining and Geology
District Collector
Lijumon K.T.
Nidhin Gopy
Addl. R6. James Jacob
Addl. R7. Sebastian Jacob
Addl. R8. Naushad
Addl. R9. C.R. Ratheesh
Addl. R10. Thomas George
Addl. R11. Devassia Chacko
Addl. R12. Geroge Kutty Jose

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Santosh Mathew
• Sri. Arun Thomas
• Sri. Jennis Stephen
• Sri. Vijay V. Paul
• Smt. Karthika Maria
• Smt. Veena Raveendran
• Smt. Anil Sebastian Pulickel
• Smt. Divya Sara George
• Smt. Jaisy Elza Joe

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Ranjith Thampan
• Sri. Bechu Kurian Thomas (Sr.)
• Sri. Enoch David Simon Joel
• Sri. Rajasekharan Nair

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Raji Mathew and Company Pamplaniyil, seeks a detailed enquiry into the genuineness of applications for No Objection Certificates (NOC) for quarrying lease in Elappara, Peerumadu Taluk. The court had earlier, by order dated 30 July 2019, impleaded additional respondents (R6–R12) to challenge potential manipulation and lack of transparency in the NOC process. The petitioner argues that bogus applications exist and there is no transparent, predefined procedure for issuing NOC for quarrying leases. It relies on Supreme Court precedents to urge that allocation of natural resources must be through a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory process, preferably via competitive bidding, to prevent collusive or fraudulent practices. The Government Respondents reference the court’s 6 November 2019 directive to district collectors to evaluate mineral wealth and the Director of Mining and Geology as the competent authority to decide on NOC, with further steps to draft guidelines. By 10 December 2019, the Government announced ongoing steps toward guidelines. The court observes that the Government has initiated a process and, given these developments, disposes of the petition, directing expeditious follow-up and finalization of appropriate guidelines without keeping the matter open further.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Transparency, fairness and non-discrimination in procedure for allocation of natural resources.
Competitive bidding as a preferred mechanism for allocation when it is fair and non-discriminatory.
Public Interest Litigation as a tool to ensure good governance and accountability in natural-resource decisions.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that bogus applications have been filed for NOC and there is no transparent, predefined procedure for issuing NOC for quarrying lease. Relying on Supreme Court judgments (Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India; Natural Resources Allocation in Re, Special Reference No. 2012 (1) SCC 1; Monohar Lal Sharma v. The Principal Secretary), the petitioner argues that allocation of mining/quarrying rights must be through a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory procedure, ideally via competitive bidding, to prevent manipulation by unscrupulous contractors. The petitioner seeks a detailed inquiry into genuineness of applications and a decision on Ext.P1.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents highlight that the Government has initiated steps to prepare guidelines. They refer to the 6 November 2019 Court directive to district collectors for proper evaluation of mineral wealth and the Director of Mining and Geology as the competent authority to decide on NOC, with a proposal to draft guidelines and place them before the Cabinet, followed by government orders. They advise expeditious action and emphasize ongoing administrative process rather than delaying the matter.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others v. Union of India and others	2012 (3) SCC 1	Positive	Cited to support that a transparent, fair and non-discriminatory procedure for allocation of natural resources is essential and that government-devised methods (including auctions) are acceptable if transparent.
Natural Resources Allocation in Re, Special Reference No. 2012 (1) SCC 1	2012 (1) SCC 1	Positive	Used to reinforce the principle that allocation of natural resources should be through a fair and often competitive process.
Monohar Lal Sharma v. The Principal Secretary and others	2014 (9) SCC 516	Positive	Cited to underscore the requirement of a fair, competitive process in resource allocation.

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 Raji Mathew and Company Pamplaniyil 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 AMIT RAWAL** **FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.20464 OF 2019(G)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **RAJI MATHEW AND COMPANY PAMPLANIYIL, VISAMPARAMBIL BUILDING, NEAR BISHOP HOUSE, PALA-686575, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR.RAJI MATHEW.** **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** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**2**|**THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,**| |---|---| ||**DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM,**| ||**PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.**| |**3**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**| ||**COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA, PAINAV P.O., IDUKKI-685603.**| |**4**|**LIJUMON K.T.,**| ||**KARIMUNDAYIL HOUSE, MALLIKASSERY P.O., KOTTAYAM**| ||**DISTRICT-686577.**| |**5**|**NIDHIN GOPY,**| ||**PUTHUVEETTIL, VAZHIKKADAVU, VAGAMON, THEEKKOYI**| ||**VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686580.**| |**6**|**ADDL.R6. JAMES JACOB,**| ||**MATTATHIL HOUSE, CHETHIMATTOM P.O., PALAI, KOTTAYAM**| ||**DISTRICT-686575.**| **WP(C).No.20464 OF 2019(G)** **2** - **7 ADDL. R7. SEBASTIAN JACOB, MATTATHIL HOUSE, CHETHIMATTOM P.O., PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686575.** - **8 ADDL. R8. NAUSHAD, E.K. ILLICKAL, MUNDAKAYAM P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686513.** - **9 ADDL. R9. C.R.RATHEESH, CHEMPAKASSERIL, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT686513.** - **10 ADDL.R10. THOMAS GEORGE, PARTNER, M/S.KUTTIKKANAM GRANTIES AND BRICKS, KONDODIKKAL HOUSE, THOTTAKKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686539.** - **11 ADDL. R11. DEVASSIA CHACKO, MATTATHIL HOUSE, CHETHIMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686575.** - **12 ADDL. R12. GEROGEKUTTY JOSE, PULAKKATT HOUSE, MYLAKKOMPU, KUMARAMANGALAM, PAINKULAM P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685584.** - **(ADDITIONAL R6 TO R12 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30/07/2019 IN IA 1/2019)** **R1-3 BY SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN,ADDL.ADVOCATE GENER R4 BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SR.) R4 BY ADV. SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL** ## **SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.01.2020,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.20464 OF 2019(G)** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner in the present writ petition has sought indulgence of this Court for commanding the 3[rd] respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry regarding the genuineness of the application for issuance of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for quarrying lease in Survey No.187/1 of Elappara Village in Peerumadu Taluk and identify genuine applicants and formulate a non discriminatory and fair procedure, keeping in mind the public interest and take a decision in the matter, and a further direction to the 3[rd] respondent to take a decision on Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner. 2. Sri.Santhosh Mathew, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that bogus applications have been filed by individuals seeking for NOC and there is no transparent procedure prescribed for issuance of NOC for quarrying lease. On the basis of the directions of this Court as per order dated 30.7.2019, additional respondents were impleaded as respondents 6 to 12. Petitioner was also not aware about the issance of any guidelines by the Government for the purpose of allocation of quarrying lease preceded by an NOC either through the process of auction or any other manner and mode. In this regard reliance has been made to judgments of **WP(C).No.20464 OF 2019(G)** **4** Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others vs. Union of India and others [2012 (3) SCC 1]** along with **Natural Resources Allocation in Re, Special Reference No. [2012 (1) SCC 1,]** and **Monohar Lal sharma Vs. the Principle Secretary and others [2014 (9) SCC 516]** and submits that the allocation of mega power projects or mines can be made through a competitive bidding which will have to be in a fair and non-capricious manner, but not in the manner being followed as of now. The procedure of transparency can easily be flouted at the behest of unscrupulous contractors while seeking necessary permission. In all the aforementioned judgments, the question raised was whether the public auction would be only the best course for leasing out the natural sources of the Government or to other persons. On going through the aforementioned questions, it has been held that if the procedure is transparent, fair and non-capricious not only the auction but other procedure devised by the Government cannot be faulted with. The grievance expressed in the present writ petition by referring to the averments in the writ petition was that though attempts have been made to give impression of different applicants, but they are one and the same person. 3. Sri.H.Hanilkumar, learned Government Pleader draws my attention to the order of this Court dated 6.11.2019 whereby **WP(C).No.20464 OF 2019(G)** **5** appropriate directions were issued to various District Collectors in the State for issuance of NOC after proper evaluation and assessment of mineral wealth of the State and the Director of Mining and Geology being the competent authority to decide upon the issue, was directed to file an affidavit. Until such time, issuance of NOC in the area involved in this writ petition, ie. Elappara was kept in abeyance. In the order dated 10.12.2019 this Court was apprised that the Government machinery had already been put into motion, whereby the Principal Secretary of Revenue has been assigned the task to prepare the draft guidelines to be adopted and place it before the Cabinet of Ministers leading to issuance of appropriate Government Orders. 4. Having heard Counsel for the parties and considering the controversy raised and as well as the cases cited above, I am of the view, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending before this Court, particularly when the Government has already initiated steps to prepare the guidelines. The Government is legitimately expected to take follow-up action in respect of the process, as expeditiously as possible, so that the mineral wealth of the particular village in question as well as all other areas where the question of issuance of NOC, is involved, to come out with the guidelines. Executive directions, ordinance or enactment as it deem **WP(C).No.20464 OF 2019(G)** **6** appropriate shall be done as expeditiously as possible. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of accordingly. ## **Sd/** **AMIT RAWAL** **JUDGE** **Jm/** **WP(C).No.20464 OF 2019(G)** **7** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20464/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR FOR N.O.C.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.11.2018 SENT BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE TAHSILDAR, PEERUMEDU.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 17.5.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR (L.R.) TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO SUBMITTED APPLICATIONS FOR NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE FOR QUARRYING LEASE FROM 01.01.2018 TO MARCH 2019.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY LIJUMON K.T. BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ON 25.7.2018 WHICH IS OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RTI ACT.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY LIJUMON K.T. BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ON 13.11.2018 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RTI ACT.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY LIJUMON K.T. IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM ON 13.11.2018 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY OF THE SAME.** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY NITHIN GOPI ON 13.11.2018 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY OF THE SAME.** **EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ON 11.6.2019.** **WP(C).No.20464 OF 2019(G)** **8**