REJI KURIAKOSE Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

(2.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent as well as the learned counsel appearing for the additional 4th respondent.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the application submitted by the petitioner for licence has been rejected by Exhibit P15 order by the 1st respondent on untenable grounds. It is further contended that the order of rejection does not refer to any decision of the Panchayat Council and therefore the order is vitiated by lack of jurisdiction. It is stated that the first reason stated for rejection of the licence is that the petitioner has not obtained environmental clearance for the renewal of licence. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that no environmental clearance is required in view of the binding decisions of this Court and the Apex Court and that the rejection of the licence is therefore completely vitiated for want of application of mind. It is stated that the second reason stated for the rejection is that the petitioner has been granted three quarrying licences and his wife has been issued another quarrying licence and mining activities are being conducted in all the four quarries without demarcating the property covered by the individual licences. It is further stated that if permission is granted, it would lead to serious repercussions as far as the residents of the locality is concerned. Exhibit P15 also states that certain requisite documents including licence in Form LE-3 under the Explosive Rules, 2008 have not been produced by the petitioner.