Robby V.J. v. District Collector, Idukki and Tahsildar, Peermade Taluk Office

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 29498 OF 2021`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` ROBY V.J. AGED 49 YEARS S/O JOSEPH, VETTATH HOUSE, KUMILY P.O. IDUKKI DISTICT-685 531. ``` ``` BY ADVS. PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SAJITHA GEORGE ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR IDUKKI, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA P.O.PAINAVU, IDUKKI -685 603. ``` - **`2 THE TAHSILDAR, PEERMADE TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, PEERMADE P.O., IDUKKI-685 532`** ## **`SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN-SPL.GP`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 29498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** ## **Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2022** This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers: _“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction directing the respondent to issue NOC to the petitioner with respect to the applied area forthwith;_ _(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction directing the respondent to finalize Ext.P1 without referring to the new Guidelines i.e. G.O.(MS) No.28/2021/RD dated 28.01.2021 issued by the Government, regarding issue of NOC with respect to puramboke land for quarrying permit”_ 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had made an application for NOC for the purpose of obtaining a quarrying permit in Government land on 01.01.2018. It is submitted that the application was sent for enquiry and report and Ext.P2 report was generated on 01.02.2018. When no orders were passed on the request for NOC, the petitioner approached this Court and by Ext.P3 judgment, this Court directed the 2[nd] respondent to complete the measurement of the property by availing services of the ``` WP(C) NO. 29498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 3 ``` Taluk Surveyor and to submit a report before the 1[st] respondent-District Collector. The 1[st] respondent was directed to process the application forthwith. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment, nothing further was done in the matter. It is submitted that Ext.P4 report was generated by the Taluk Surveyor, Peerumedu along with a sketch and Ext.P5 report was submitted by the 2[nd] respondent. It is submitted that though Ext.P6 representation dated 08.06.2020 was submitted by the petitioner, NOC was not granted. Ext.P7 letter issued by the District Geologist dated 11.06.2020 is also relied on. It is submitted that the respondents have inordinately delayed the finalization of the request made by the petitioner for NOC for unjustifiable reason in spite of the direction issued in Ext.P3 judgment. 5. It is further stated that the respondents are refusing to pass the order referring to a Government Order issued on 28.01.2021 laying down guidelines for issuing NOC with regard to quarrying in Government puramboke. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Government Order can have no application in the instant ``` WP(C) NO. 29498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 4 ``` case since the petitioner's application was, admittedly, dated 01.01.2018 and this Court had directed the consideration of the said application by Ext.P3 judgment in March, 2018. It is submitted that several other applications for NOC had been favourably considered and NOCs have been issued by the respondents as is evident from Exts.P8 to P10. 6. A statement has been placed on record by the 1[st] respondent. It is contended that the petitioner's application for NOC was received on 01.01.2018 and had been sent for appropriate reports. It is submitted that after Ext.P3 judgment, the report of the survey was received only on 23.07.2018 and that all works in the office of the 1[st] respondent were brought to a stand still due to the floods of 2018 and the entire office was dealing with the said unprecedented flood situations. It is submitted that the petitioner also did not make any enquiry about the progress of his application till 07.06.2020. It is submitted that the petitioner thereafter submitted a representation on 08.06.2020 and the said application was sent for further report. It is submitted that in the meanwhile, the Geologist had informed by letter dated 28.09.2020 that new guidelines are being prepared in the Revenue Department ``` WP(C) NO. 29498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 5 ``` regarding the issuance of NOC for quarrying in Government land and that the application had been kept pending, awaiting the issuance of such directions. It is submitted that on 28.01.2021, the Government issued G.O.(MS).No.28/2021/RD issuing guidelines for grant of NOC for quarrying operations in Government puramboke lands which directed that quarrying lease should be issued only through bidding process as per the norms and conditions. It is submitted that this is the reason why the petitioner's application could not be considered. 7. A reply affidavit has also been placed on record by the petitioner. It is contended that in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner's application was dated 01.01.2018 and since this Court had specifically directed the consideration of the application by Ext.P3 judgment, the contention that the Government Order dated 28.01.2021 has any role to play in the matter is completely misconceived. It is contended that what was submitted on 08.06.2020 was only a representation as a reminder to the application and not a fresh application which could have been considered in accordance with the proposed guidelines. It is submitted that in view of the fact that the application had been pending and in ``` WP(C) NO. 29498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 6 ``` view of Ext.P3 judgment of this Court directing the consideration of the same, the respondents cannot rely on any later change in policy in the matter of consideration of the same. 8. The decisions of a Division Bench of this Court in **Kallada Hotels and Resorts v. State of Kerala [2012 (2) KLT 167]** and of a learned Single Judge in **Hotel Hills Park v. State of Kerala [2014 (2) KLT 15]** were relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the respondents who have delayed consideration of an application cannot later rely on any change in the procedure for consideration to contend that the application is not liable to be considered in accordance with the procedure in force when the application was submitted. 9. The learned Government Pleader submits that by the time the representation was submitted by the petitioner on 08.06.2020, the Government letter dated 18.01.2020 had already been issued. 10. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government letter dated 18.01.2020 refers only to fresh applications submitted after that date and since the petitioner's application was ``` WP(C) NO. 29498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 7 ``` admittedly filed on 01.01.2018, the said letter would not have any application in the light of the earlier procedure. 11. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I notice that the application for NOC was, admittedly, submitted on 01.01.2018. By Ext.P3 judgment, this Court had specifically directed the consideration of the same after obtaining reports from the Tahsildar and the Taluk Surveyor. The reports were, admittedly, before the respondents in July, 2018. In view of Ext.P3 judgment, there was no justifiable reason for the respondents to have delayed the consideration of the application inordinately. Even if the contention raised by the respondents that the delay occurred due to the floods in 2018 is accepted, in view of Ext.P3 judgment, the 1[st] respondent was duty bound to take up the application, at least, as soon as the reminder made by the petitioner was submitted. Even as on that date, that is, on 08.06.2020, there was no order revising the procedure. 12. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the application submitted by the petitioner for NOC is liable to be considered and disposed of in the light of the procedure in force, ``` WP(C) NO. 29498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 8 ``` without reference to the Government Order dated 28.01.2021. Appropriate orders shall be passed in the application submitted by the petitioner for NOC, after considering all relevant aspects of the matter, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, without reference to the Government Order dated 28.01.2021. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. ``` Sd/- ``` ## **`ANU SIVARAMAN`** ``` JUDGE ``` ``` NP ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 29498 OF 2021 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29498/2021`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:`** |**`Exhibit P1`**|**`TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT SHOWING A ACCEPTANCE OF`**| |---|---| ||**`APPLICATION BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 1.1.2018`**| |**`Exhibit P2`**|**`TRUE COPY OF REPORT FORWARDED BY THE VILLAGE`**| ||**`OFFICER ON 1.2.2018`**| |**`Exhibit P3`**|**`TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20.3.2018 PASSED`**| ||**`BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO 7132/2018`**| |**`Exhibit P4`**|**`TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE TALUK`**| ||**`SURVEYOR BEARING NO LRMN 424/218 AND THE`**| ||**`SKETCH`**| |**`Exhibit P5`**|**`TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND`**| ||**`RESPONDENT DATED 20.7.2018`**| |**`Exhibit P6`**|**`TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 8.6.2020`**| ||**`SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER`**| |**`Exhibit P7`**|**`TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 11.6.2020 ISSUED BY`**| ||**`THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST`**| |**`Exhibit P8`**|**`TRUE COPY OF REGISTER SHOWING THE NAME OF`**| ||**`APPLICANTS AND NOC TO V.T.SUNNY`**| |**`Exhibit P9`**|**`TRUE COPY OF OF NOC ISSUED BY THE 1ST`**| ||**`RESPONDENT TO JACOB P. PAUL AND REGISTER`**| |**`Exhibit P10`**|**`TRUE COPY OF NOC ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`**| ||**`TO SHANTI RAJU.`**| |**`RESPONDENTS’`**|**`EXHIBITS: NIL`**|