JAICE JOHN Vs. DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 7th respondent submitted an application to the 2nd respondent on 6/08/2018 to establish a quarry in the property measuring 1.0336 Hectares in Re.Sy.No.541/2 in Block No.13 of Purapuzha Village, owned by one Somy Joseph of Vattakkat House, Kuninji P.O., which is located near the petitioners' residential houses. He obtained Ext.P3 Letter of Intent under Rule 8 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (for short, the KMMC Rules) from the Geology Department. As per condition No. (4) of Ext.P3, the 7th respondent must produce an explosives licence for extracting minerals from the specified area as outlined in the approved mining plan.

(2.) The 3rd respondent issued Ext.P4, the LE-3 explosives licence, to the 8th respondent, to possess for use of explosives at a magazine located at Sy.Nos. 282/1-2, 303/2-1, 303/2-2, 302/2-2, and 302/3, Block No.41 of Thiruvaniyoor Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk, Ernakulam. This licence remains valid until 31/3/2027. The 8th respondent submitted an application to the 3rd respondent, seeking permission to use explosives in the proposed quarry of the 7th respondent, utilising his Ext. P4 licence. Based on this application, the 3rd respondent extended the licence to include the property of the proposed quarry of the 7th respondent, thereby permitting the 8th respondent to use explosives there. Subsequently, the 7th respondent entered into Ext.P5 agreement with the 8th respondent for carrying out blasting operations within his quarry. The 7th respondent asserts that, by virtue of this arrangement with the 8th respondent, he has effectively obtained an explosives licence in accordance with the Explosives Rules, 2008 (for short, 'Explosives Rules). However, the petitioners contend that this arrangement does not satisfy condition No. (4) in Ext. P3, the Letter of Intent, and that the 7th respondent must personally obtain an explosives licence. It was in these circumstances, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking an order to direct respondents 2 and 3 not to grant permission for the conducting of quarry to the 7th respondent until he produces an explosives licence in his name. They also seek to quash Ext.P4 to the extent it authorises the 8th respondent to use explosives in the quarry of the 7th respondent.

(3.) The 1st respondent filed a counter-affidavit supporting the petitioners. It is stated that, for granting quarrying permission, the explosives licence must be in the name of the proponent, and that the 1st respondent declined the 7th respondent's request to treat Ext.P4 as a valid explosives licence, instructing him to produce an explosives licence issued in his own name. The communication from the 1st respondent to the 7th respondent regarding this matter has been produced and marked as Ext.R1(a). It is further stated that the 1st respondent will only consider the 7th respondent's application for the quarrying licence upon production of an explosives licence in his name.