A.H. SHERIFF Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application dtd. 28/5/2019 before the 2nd respondent District Collector for grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for quarrying granite from revenue puramboke land. Ext.P2 acknowledges the receipt of Ext.P1. The application was forwarded by the District Collector to various revenue authorities for their remarks and reports. The 3rd respondent Tahsildar, by Ext.P3 letter dtd. 27/8/2019, recommended the grant of NOC. However, no orders were passed by the District Collector on Ext.P1 for more than four years. Later, Ext.P1 was rejected by the District Collector by Ext.P4 order dtd. 21/9/2023. In Ext.P4, it is stated that pending Ext.P1 application, the Government have issued G.O (MS) No.28/2021/RD dtd. 28/1/2021 (Ext.P5) providing guidelines for grant of NOC for mining of minerals from Government lands and that the application of the petitioner for grant of NOC can be considered only in accordance with the said guidelines. The petitioner states that the application for NOC submitted in May, 2019 cannot be rejected on the basis of Ext.P5 guidelines issued in January, 2021. According to the petitioner, his application for NOC has to be considered on the basis of the law prevailing at the time of submission of the application and Ext.P5 issued much thereafter cannot be relied upon to reject the same. The petitioner also relied on Ext.P6 judgment of this Court wherein it was held that the application for grant of NOC for mining minerals shall be considered in the light of the law prevailing as on the date of filing of the application. Accordingly, the petitioner has sought for direction to quash Ext.P4 and to direct the District Collector to grant NOC de hors Ext.P5 guidelines.

(2.) Heard Sri.Enoch David, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Bimal K.Nath, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.

(3.) Sri.Enoch would contend that Ext.P1 application was submitted in May, 2019 and the District Collector chose to sit over the application indefinitely. Ext.P5 guidelines were issued in January, 2021. The District Collector took up Ext.P1 application for consideration after an inexplicable delay of more than four years and rejected the same relying on Ext.P5 guidelines. It is contended that the District Collector cannot be permitted to take advantage of the delay by rejecting the application relying on the guidelines which came much subsequently. Sri.Enoch would contend that the petitioner was not responsible for the delay in considering the application and the law is trite that the application will have to be considered on the basis of the law prevailing at the time of its submission. Sri. Enoch refers to the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.36198 of 2022 wherein this Court observed that the District Collector has no authority to examine the scientific feasibility of excavation and directed the District Collector to consider the application for grant of NOC in accordance with law. It is stated that the said judgment has been confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.1325 of 2023.