RAJESH Vs. DISTRICT GEOLOGIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the owner in possession of landed property having an extent of 51.19 Ares. The petitioner stands in need of digging a pond therein for agricultural activities. The same involves extraction of granite. According to the petitioner, the granite is intended to be used for constructing the boundary walls of the pond. At any rate, the same is not required to be transported outside the premises. According to the petitioner, his activity will fall under Rule 106 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, which only speaks of an intimation to the competent authority. However, a stop memo has been issued, vide Ext.P4 treating the activity as one coming within Rule 104 of the Rules afore referred. The short issue, which falls for consideration is whether Rule 104 or 106 applies to the fact situation herein.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the purpose specified for extraction of granite is the construction of a pond. The specific case espoused by the petitioner is that the granite to be excavated will be used for construction of boundary walls of the pond and there is no requirement, whatsoever, to transport the granite outside the premises. So long as transportation of mineral or earth is not involved, Rule 104 is not attracted, is the submission made. The learned counsel would refer to the terms "extraction and transportation" as employed conjunctively in Rule 104 repeatedly, whereas, there is no such transportation envisaged in the main part of Rule 106. It is only in the proviso, which speaks of transportation of the mineral extracted, which requires enabling transit passes to be issued, after collecting the royalty.