DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANNIYAKUMARI Vs. P VIJAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no fundamental right to quarry minerals of whatever kind. The persons who want to quarry seem to be labouring under a misconception that there is such a right. The State permits quarrying by grant of licence and regulates the extraction of minerals. The State undoubtedly has the right to even curb quarrying. It may do so because of over-exploitation or environmental damage. The constitutional Courts may also in "public interest" stop quarrying. The Supreme Court has passed such an order as regards the Aravalli Range. Petitions are filed for interim directions to quarry. Some times even if ultimately the main petitions fail for lack of merit, the petitioners have happily achieved their ends by the interim orders. The Honb'le Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran, Judge of the Supreme Court of India, has this to say about interim orders in his article "Rendering Judgments - Some Basics" in (2009) 10 SCC J1. "But, what should not be lost sight of, is the fact that while in a private litigation, the sufferer on account of an unwarranted interim or final order may be only an individual, the entire public interest suffers where the interim or final order is against the Government." Rocks which have been standing as witnesses to history are cut up like bread loaves by Man. Rapaciousness blinds him to the Truth that Nature may have the last laugh. The State holds these natural resources like water, minerals, forests in trust for the citizens of today and many many tomorrows, and must protect them.

(2.) THE District Collector, Kanyakumari District, is the appellant. THE writ petitioner / respondent was granted a lease for quarrying jelly for a period of five years from 17.8.1999 to 16.8.2004. According to him, the quarrying operation could not be conducted for the entire five years period. For the period during which the quarry was not operative, he requested extension of lease. This was ordered in W.P. (MD)No. 5971 of 2005 and the lease was extended from 7.12.2005 to 8.1.2008. According to him, the quarry was a "virgin quarry". THErefore, when Rule 8(8) of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1959, came into force, he was entitled to have a lease for a period of 10 years and the contention raised by the persons similar to him was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in A. Srinivasan v. District Collector, Kanchipuram (2008) 3 CTC 800 : (2008) 5 MLJ 551. THE writ petitioner gave a request on 24.11.2008 to consider his case on par with others who got the benefit of the order in A.Srinivasan v. District Collector, Kanchipuram (supra). According to him, no orders were passed and therefore, he filed the Writ Petition.

(3.) LEARNED Special Government Pleader submitted that, against the order passed by the Division Bench, which was in A.Srinivasan v. District Collector, Kanchipuram (supra), a Special Leave Petition was filed wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the Special Leave Petition has been dismissed as having virtually become infructuous as the 10 years period expired in June, 2009 and only the question of law is left open. Therefore, according to the learned Special Government Pleader, the Supreme Court did not make any exception but treated the 10 years period as the block period which expired in 2009.