CRYSTAL GRANITES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner was granted a quarrying lease for extracting granite stones, by the competent authority under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (the Rules). The second petitioner is the Managing Director of the first petitioner. The term of the said quarrying lease expired on 02.03.2020. The first petitioner preferred an application for renewal of the quarrying lease granted to them on 14.12.2019. Ext.P20 is the application preferred by the first petitioner in this connection. It is seen that the statutory payments due in respect of the renewal application has also been remitted by the first petitioner on 16.12.2019. The main grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the second respondent in considering Ext.P20 application. It is pointed out by the petitioners that on account of their inability to get the quarrying lease renewed, the fourth respondent is not renewing the consent issued to them on the strength of the quarrying lease to operate the quarry. Similarly, it is pointed out by the petitioners that on account of their inability to get the quarrying lease renewed, the fifth respondent Panchayat is not renewing the licence granted to them for their quarrying activity. The petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate directions to the statutory authorities concerned to consider the applications preferred by the first petitioner for renewal of the quarrying lease, for consent to operate the quarry and for licence to run the quarry, referred to above.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader seeks time to file a statement in the matter.

(3.) On being specifically asked as to the reason for filing a statement in a matter like this, where the petitioners only seek directions to the competent authorities to consider the applications preferred by the petitioners in terms of the respective statutes/rules, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that the quarrying lease in favour of the first petitioner was not only in respect of its registered land, but also in respect of part of a Government Puramboke, and in terms of Rule 27(2)(d) of the Rules, the first petitioner ought to have obtained a No Objection Certificate from the District Collector concerned for the purpose of getting the quarrying lease and the quarrying lease sought to be renewed is one obtained without the No Objection Certificate of the District Collector. According to the learned Government Pleader, insofar as the first petitioner does not have a No Objection Certificate from the District Collector, they are not entitled to get the quarrying lease renewed. It was also pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that he has instructions to the effect that the quarrying operations conducted by the first petitioner on the strength of the quarrying lease sought to be renewed were contrary to the terms of the quarrying lease and that substantial amounts are due to the Government in terms of the Rules from the first petitioner, and steps are being taken to realize the dues from the first petitioner. According to the learned Government Pleader, the first petitioner is not entitled to get the quarrying lease renewed on account of the said reason as well. It was pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the first petitioner is not entitled to get the quarrying lease renewed, also in the light of the recent order passed by the National Green Tribunal in Original Application No.304 of 2019 dated 21.07.2020.