K. SIVADASAN Vs. GEOLOGIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court praying that his application for renewal of a Dealers Licence, under the provisions of the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short), be directed to be considered by the 1 st respondent - Geologist, Kozhikode without insisting upon a consent letter to be issued by the owner of the property, namely the 5th respondent herein. The petitioner, as a corollary, has also challenged Rule 6(d) of the said Rules, as being illegal and unlawful, since it mandates a consent from the owner of the property, to the effect that he has no objection for using the premises for stocking, processing and trading of minerals and products. The petitioner thus prays that Rule 6(d) of the Rules be set aside and the 1 st respondent - Geologist be directed to accept his application and consider the same in terms of law.

(2.) In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader - Sri.Rajasekharan Nair submits that the provisions of Rule 6(d) of the Rules are salutary in nature because, should anyone conduct an illegal activity in the property in question, it is the owner who would also be made responsible under the applicable provisions; and therefore, that unless the owner consents that his property can be used for the purpose of stocking, processing and trading of minerals and its products, a fresh licence cannot be granted nor it can be renewed. He, therefore, says that the provision cannot be found to be illegal or unconstitutional, adding that if the petitioner requires his application to be considered, the same can be done after affording an opportunity of being heard to the 5th respondent also. The learned Senior Government Pleader, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed.

(3.) Smt.Veena Hari, learned counsel appearing for the 5 th respondent, affirms that her client is the owner of the property, on which the petitioner is attempting to stock minerals, and that the parties are already engaged in a civil litigation before the competent Courts, including the Rent Control Court and that an order of eviction of the petitioner has already been issued. She says, therefore, that the 5 th respondent does not intend to grant any consent for the property being used for the purpose of stocking minerals in future.