CRYSTAL GRANITES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner is a company. The second petitioner is the Managing Director of the first petitioner company. The first petitioner company was operating a granite building stone quarry after securing all the requisite permissions and licences, including a mining lease in terms of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 (the 1967 Rules). Ext.P2 is the mining lease in favour of the first petitioner. Ext.P2 lease was one executed on 03.03.2018 and the same was valid till 02.03.2020. In the meanwhile, when the 1967 Rules was replaced by the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (the 2015 Rules), the first petitioner applied for approval of the mining plan in terms of the 2015 Rules for continuing the quarrying operations. The mining plan submitted by the first petitioner was approved by the competent authority under the 2015 Rules on 28.05.2015. The quantity of granite building stones permitted to be extracted in terms of Ext.P2 mining lease was only 25,000 metric tons per year, whereas in terms of the approved mining plan, the first petitioner could extract granite building stones to the tune of 3,70,661.4 metric tons per year. Consequently, after the approval of the mining plan, the first petitioner was being issued movement permit for removal of mineral in tune with the approved mining plan. While so, the first petitioner was issued Ext.P8 communication by the second respondent informing them that they are not entitled to extract mineral in excess of the quantity mentioned in Ext.P2 lease deed. The second petitioner challenged Ext.P8 communication before this Court in W.P.(C) No.17679 of 2019, and the said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P9 judgment, directing the competent authority under the 2015 Rules to consider whether additional mining lease could be granted to the petitioners in tune with their approved mining plan. Pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment, the first petitioner was granted additional mining lease for the remaining period of Ext.P2 lease in tune with the approved mining plan. Ext.P10 order is seen issued in this regard by the second respondent. Pursuant to Ext.P10 order, an additional mining lease was executed between the first petitioner and the State for the period from 22.01.2020 to 02.03.2020. Ext.P12 is the additional lease deed. The case of the petitioners in the writ petition is that since the quarrying activity undertaken lawfully by them was interdicted by the second respondent in terms of Ext.P8 communication till the execution of Ext.P12 additional lease deed namely, 22.01.2020, they are entitled to the extension of lease for the said period namely, 217 days. It is stated by the petitioners that Ext.P21 representation preferred by the petitioners in this regard before the second respondent is not being considered. Hence this writ petition.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent in the writ petition. It is stated, among others, in the counter affidavit that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana , 2012 4 SCC 629, it was obligatory for the quarrying operators to get the mining plan approved; that since the first petitioner was entitled to extract additional quantity of mineral in terms of the approved mining plan, they were permitted to extract mineral in terms of the approved mining plan; that in Binoy Kumar v. State of Kerala,2019 2 KerLT 227, it was held by this Court that a concession holder is not entitled to extract more quantity of mineral than what is mentioned in the lease; that in the light of Binoy Kumar, Ext.R2(a) instruction was issued by the second respondent to all the Geologists in the State to restrict movement permits in tune with the quantity mentioned in the quarrying leases of all leaseholders; that on 06.06.2019 the petitioners preferred Ext.R2(b) representation against Ext.R2(a) instruction as they were not party to Binoy Kumar and that Ext.P8 is the reply sent by the second respondent to the first petitioner informing them that they are not entitled to extract mineral in excess of the quantity mentioned in the lease deed. It is asserted by the third respondent in the counter affidavit that in the light of the decision of this Court in Binoy Kumar, the first petitioner was not entitled to extract mineral in excess of the quantity mentioned in Ext.P2 lease deed and they were permitted after the judgment in Binoy Kumar to extract mineral in tune with the quantity mentioned in Ext.P2 lease deed till the execution of Ext.P12 additional lease deed. It is also asserted by the third respondent in the counter affidavit that insofar as the first petitioner was permitted to extract mineral as per their entitlement, Ext.P8 cannot be construed as a stop memo. According to the third respondent, the claim of the first petitioner for extension of the lease is without any basis.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader.