(1.) These writ appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 23.6.2017 of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).Nos.24865 and 26397/2015, Cont. Case (C) No.1516/2015 and W.P.(C).No.33499/2016. The appellant before us was the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.24865/2015 and the respondent in the connected writ petitions that were preferred at the instance of certain objectors to the mining activities carried on by him. The brief facts necessary for a disposal of the appeals are that, the appellant was carrying on quarrying operations in respect of "minor minerals", within the meaning of the said term under the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 [hereinafter referred to as "the MMDR Act"]. The said activities were carried out pursuant to a quarrying lease that had been obtained by the appellant from the State Government, which was valid for the period from 2012 to 2024. It is stated that the appellant had also obtained the necessary statutory clearances from the Meenachil Grama Panchayat for the purposes of carrying on the said quarrying activities. While the Dangerous & Offensive Trade licence [hereinafter referred to as "the D & O licence"] required for carrying on the operations was granted by the Panchayat for previous years, the renewal of the licence for the year 2013-14 came to be rejected. This prompted the appellant to approach the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions through a Revision Petition impugning the order of the Panchayat. Various persons objecting to the grant of D & O licence to the appellant had also approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, aggrieved by the decision of the Panchayat, to the extent it did not take into account their objections while passing the order refusing to renew the D & O licence in favour of the appellant. The Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions disposed the Revision Petitions, by directing the respondent Panchayat to consider the application for D & O licence submitted by the appellant, afresh, in the light of the observations in the order of the Tribunal. This prompted the appellant, as also the objectors, to file separate writ petitions before this Court impugning the order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions on separate grounds mentioned in the writ petitions. The learned Single Judge, who heard the writ petitions, passed the impugned judgment, taking note of the contentions raised on behalf of certain objectors, who objected to the quarrying lease granted to the appellant, inter alia on the ground that the quarrying lease had been issued in favour of a person who was not an Indian national. This last ground appealed to the learned Single Judge, who, after reference to the provisions of Section 5 of the MMDR Act as also Rule 26 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as "the KMMC Rules"] found that the State Government could not grant a reconnaissance permit, prospecting license or mining lease to any person unless such person was an Indian national. Reference was made to Rule 26 of the KMMC Rules, which also mandates that quarrying leases in respect of minor minerals could be granted to persons other than Indian nationals only with the previous approval of the Central Government. It was further found by the learned Single Judge that the enabling provision in Rule 26 of the KMMC Rules cannot be seen as empowering the Central Government to grant an approval for the mining activities carried on by the appellant merely on the recommendation of the State Government, since, in the opinion of the learned Single Judge, such an approval would be ultra vires the provisions of the MMDR Act of 1957.
(2.) The learned counsel Sri. V. G. Arun appearing for the appellant in all these writ appeals would contend that, while it is not in dispute that the appellant does not have the prior approval of the Central Government as required under Rule 26 of the KMMC Rules, for the purposes of carrying on any quarrying activity, the findings of the learned Single Judge that suggest that no prior approval of the Central Government, can be granted for obtaining a quarrying lease in respect of minor minerals, will prejudicially affect any future attempt of the appellant in obtaining a quarrying lease or an extension thereof. It is pointed out that, if, in future, the appellant succeeds in getting the prior approval of the Central Government, then the judgment of the learned Single Judge could stand in the way of his obtaining a quarrying lease from the State Government, pursuant to the approval of the Central Government.
(3.) We have carefully considered the submission of Sri. V.G. Arun, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in all these writ appeals, Sri. Georgekutty Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 in W.A.Nos.2271/2017 and 2273/2017 and for respondents 4 to 6 in W.A.No.2272/2017, Sri. P.C. Haridas, the learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. (C).No.2272/2017 and respondents 4 to 6 in W.P.(C).No.2273/2017 and also Sri. T. Naveen, the learned Standing counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board in W.P.(C).No.2271/2017. We have also heard Sri. Surin George Ipe, the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents in all these writ appeals.