KRIPESH C.K. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are persons residing within the limits of Aikkaranadu South Village in Ernakulam District. On the strength of Ext.P2 quarrying lease, the fourth respondent has been operating a quarry in the vicinity of the residences of the petitioners intermittently from 02.05.2019. According to the petitioners, Ext.P2 quarrying lease granted to the fourth respondent on 21.11.2008 had elapsed on the expiry of two years, by virtue of the provisions contained in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, as the fourth respondent has failed to undertake mining operations within two years from 21.11.2008. It is stated by the petitioners that though movement permits have been issued by the third respondent to the fourth respondent initially on the strength of Ext.P2 quarrying lease, when a doubt arose as to whether Ext.P2 quarrying lease had elapsed by operation of law, the third respondent stopped issuing movement permits to the fourth respondent and sought clarification from the second respondent, the Director of Mining and Geology as to the further course of action. Aggrieved by the said conduct of the third respondent, the fourth respondent has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.15110 of 2019 and the said writ petition was disposed of directing the second respondent to issue the clarification sought by the third respondent. Ext.P7 is the order passed by this Court in this regard. Pursuant to Ext.P7 order, the second respondent has passed Ext.P8 order clarifying that Ext.P2 quarrying lease has not elapsed. Ext.P8 order is under challenge in the writ petition.

(2.) When the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that Ext.P2 quarrying lease was granted only for the period up to 20.11.2020 and the fourth respondent is therefore, not operating the quarry anymore.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners then pointed out that extensive damage has been caused to the properties of the petitioners on account of the operation of the quarry by the fourth respondent and the petitioners therefore, propose to institute civil suits for recovery of damages from the fourth respondent. It was also pointed out by the petitioners that if the petitioners leave Ext.P8 order unchallenged, they may face difficulties in claiming damages from the fourth respondent in the proposed suits. The learned counsel, therefore requested the court to examine the correctness of Ext.P8 decision of the second respondent notwithstanding the fact that the term of Ext.P2 quarrying lease has expired.