JOY SCARIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an Overseas Citizen of India card holder (for short, OCI card holder). He is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order rejecting Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner under Rule 26 of the Kerala Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2015 (for short, KMMC Rules). The petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of landed properties having an extent of 3.5827 hectares comprised in Survey Nos.212/5A, 5, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, and 215/1-1 of Poovarani Village, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam District, which devolved upon him from his ancestors. It is the case of the petitioner that to carry out quarrying activities on his land, he obtained all statutory permissions after complying with all procedural requirements as contemplated by law and caused to register a duly executed quarrying lease dtd. 1/2/2012 before the Office of the Sub Registrar, Meenachil.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that when the quarrying operations were about to begin, objections were raised by certain individuals, resulting in certain writ petitions before this Court. As per Ext.P1, common judgment in W.P.(C). Nos.33499/2016, 26397/2015, 24865/2015 and C.P.(C). No.1516/2015, this Court was pleased to set aside the quarrying licence granted to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not an Indian citizen, and in view of specific embargo as per Sec. 5 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 (For short, MMDR Act). Ext.P1 judgment was challenged by filing a writ appeal and as per Ext.P2 judgment, the Division Bench, without interdicting the finding in Ext.P1 judgment, disposed of the Writ Appeal Nos.2271, 2272 and 2273 of 2017 by a common judgment dtd. 16/7/2018 clarifying that the petitioner can approach Central Government under proviso of Rule 26 of the KMMC Rules to obtain an approval and then he can get a quarrying lease from State Government. Pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application before the competent authority. When there was a delay in disposing of Ext.P3, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No.12289/2020. This Court directed the competent authority among the Central Government to consider Ext.P3 application. Pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment, Ext.P5 order was passed by the 2nd respondent. Again Ext.P5 was challenged before this Court by filing W.P.(C). No.840/2021. This Court, as per Ext.P6 judgment, was pleased to set aside Ext.P5 order because it is not a speaking order. Thereafter the matter was again considered by the 2nd respondent, and Ext.P7 order was passed rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel Adv.C.Dinesh.