BABU THOMAS Vs. DIRECTOR OF MINES SAFETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks for renewal of the quarrying permit/lease. It is contended that the refusal to renew the same by relying upon a communication issued by the first respondent, is not justified.

(2.) THE quarrying permit was granted by proceedings dated 2.7.2010 issued by the third respondent. It was given for mining and also for the purpose of erecting a stone crusher in the property. The property is owned by the petitioner. Ext.P2 is copy of the proceedings of the Pollution Control Board granting consent to establish, Ext.P3 is the copy of licence issued by the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives in Form LE-3. The application for permission to establish the crusher and the quarry, submitted before the Panchayat stood rejected by Ext.P5 which was challenged before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, in Appeal No.983/2010 and the order of the Tribunal is produced as Ext.P6, whereby a direction is given to reconsider the application. Ext.P7 is the copy of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3214/2012 wherein the Panchayat has been directed to comply with the directions of the Tribunal. It is submitted that the matter is still pending before the Panchayat and according to the petitioner, the Panchayat might grant permission to start the quarry and establish the crusher in the property.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that all the directions in Ext.P9 will be complied with by the petitioner, but they need be complied with only before starting the operations. It is submitted that all the directions in Ext.P9 and the regulations are mandatorily to be complied with. But the third respondent was not right in directing to comply with the same at this stage. It is submitted that the appointment of Manager and other matters need not be made at this stage, that too before the third respondent grants the permit, as otherwise it will be unnecessary. The Panchayat has also to grant clearance to the petitioner.