Partly allowed

Basheer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jul 2019WP(C)/12276/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, disposed of three inter-related writ petitions/writ appeal involving a granite quarry lease dispute, royalty realization, and lease renewal. The court held the writ appeal infructuous due to lease expiry and dismissed W.P.(C) 12276/2018, while directing authorities to consider lease renewal.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; W.P.(C) 12276/2018 dismissed; W.P.(C) 38589/2018 disposed with direction to authorities to consider lease renewal application within two months.

Basheer Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1941 WA.No.2023 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4974/2017 of HIGHCOURT

¶7

APPELLANT/3RD PARTY:

¶8

BASHEER P.K AGED 49 YEARS S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, PUTHIYATTUKUNDIL, KOOMBARA P.O, KOZHIKODE 673604

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.B.ANUSREE SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SMT.B.ANUSREE SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.SABU GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 M/S. PONOORPOYIL GRANITES MARANCHATTY, KOODARANHI P.O, KOZHIKODE 673604, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER AJAS M.M, S/O. M.C. MUHAMMAD, MUSLIYARAKATH HOUSE, KOODARANHI P.O, KOZHIKODE 673604

¶12

2 THE DIRECTOR MINING AND GEOLOGY DIRECTORATE, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004

¶13

3 THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE,MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,CIVIL STATION.P.O.KOZHIKODE,PIN 673020.

¶14

W.A.No.2023 of 2018, W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2018 &

¶15

¶16

W.P.C.No.38589 of 2018

¶17

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUMARANALLOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 604.

¶18

5 THE KARASSERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KARASSERRY P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 604.

¶19

BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)FOR R1 SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.S.K.SAJU SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.07.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C)12276/2018, WP(C)38589/2018, THE COURT ON 23.07.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.A.No.2023 of 2018,

¶22

W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2018 &

¶23

¶24

W.P.C.No.38589 of 2018

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶26

PRESENT

¶27

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶28

¶29

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶30

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1941

¶31

WP(C).No.12276 of 2018

¶32

PETITIONER:

¶33

BASHEER.P.K. AGED 49, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, PUTHIYATTUKUNDIL,KOOMBARA P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 604

¶34

BY ADVS.

¶35

SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.SABU GEORGE

¶36

RESPONDENTS:

¶37

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶38

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. KOZHIKODE-673 001

¶39

3 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL MINES SAFETY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KORAMANGALA,NEAR BDA COMPLEX, 4 B-BLOCK, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 034

¶40

4 THE DIRECTOR MINING AND GEOLOGY DIRECTORATE, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004

¶41

W.A.No.2023 of 2018,

¶42

W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2018

¶43

¶44

¶45

W.P.C.No.38589 of 2018

¶46

5 THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST DISTRICT OFFICE, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 020

¶47

6 THE ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE-673 612

¶48

7 THE DIRECTOR VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033

¶49

8 THE KARASSERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KARASSERY P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 604. 9 MS PONOORPOYIL GRANITES MARANCHATTY, KOODARANHI P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 604 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER AJAS M.M.,S/O.M.C.MUHAMMAD, MUSLIYARAKATH HOUSE, KOODARANHI P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 604 10 THE SECRETARY MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 11 THE SECRETARY INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001 BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN FOR R1 TO R5, R7, R10 AND R11 SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.S.K.SAJU SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA SRI.MARTIN JOSE FOR R9 SRI. T.NAVEEN , SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD R6

¶50

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.07.2019, ALONG WITH WA.2023/2018 AND W.P.(C) NO.38589 OF 2018, THE COURT ON 23.07.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶51

W.A.No.2023 of 2018,

¶52

W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2018 &

¶53

¶54

W.P.C.No.38589 of 2018

¶55

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶56

PRESENT

¶57

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶58

¶59

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶60

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1941

¶61

WP(C).No.38589 of 2018

¶62

PETITIONER:

¶63

M/S.PONOORPOYIL GRANITES MARANCHATTY, KOODARANHI P.O, KOZHIKODE 673604, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER AJAS M.M, S/O. M.C. MUHAMMAD, MUSLIYARAKATH HOUSE, KOODARANHI P.O, KOZHIKODE 673604

¶64

BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.NAVEEN SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.S.K.SAJU SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA

¶65

RESPONDENTS:

¶66

1 THE DIRECTOR, MINING AND GEOLOGY, MINING AND GEOLOGY DIRECTORATE,KESAVADASAPURAM,PATTOM P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 004

¶67

2 THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE,MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,CIVIL STATION.P.O.KOZHIKODE,PIN 673020.

¶68

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN

¶69

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.07.2019 ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO.12276 OF 2018 AND W.A.NO.2023 OF 2018, THE COURT ON 23.07.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶70

W.A.No.2023 of 2018,

¶71

¶72

W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2018 & W.P.C.No.38589 of 2018

¶73

C.K.ABDUL REHIM &

¶74

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.

¶75

************************** W.A.No.2023 of 2018,

¶76

W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2018 & W.P.C.No.38589 of 2018

¶77

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 23^rd day of July, 2019

¶78

J U D G M E N T

¶79

R.Narayana Pisharadi, J

¶80

Since the issues involved in the above writ appeal and the writ petitions are inter-related to each other, we deem it appropriate to dispose of them by a common judgment.

¶81

W.A.No.2023 of 2018

¶82

This writ appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned

¶83

Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4974/2017, by a third party, after obtaining leave from this Court.

¶84

W.P.(C) No.4974/2017 was filed by the partnership firm 'M/s.Ponoorpoyil Granites' (hereinafter referred to as 'the firm'), the first respondent in the appeal, against the respondents 2 to 5 in the appeal. The prayer in the writ petition was to quash Ext.P19 'stop

¶85

W.A.No.2023 of 2018,

¶86

W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2018 7 &

¶87

W.P.C.No.38589 of 2018

¶88

memo' issued to it by the Senior Geologist of the Mining and Geology Department directing the firm to stop quarrying operations in the land having an extent of 2.632 hectares in respect of which the firm had obtained a quarrying lease. The reason stated in Ext.P19 to give such a direction to the firm was that, the aforesaid land was illegally acquired by the firm and that it was a land involved in Vigilance Case No.03/2017/KKD, which was being investigated by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau.

¶89

The firm filed the writ petition stating that it had obtained all necessary licences and permits required for conducting quarrying operations in the land and the vigilance case was instituted on the basis of a frivolous complaint made by the appellant herein.

¶90

By the time the writ petition came up for hearing, the investigating officer had filed a refer report in the vigilance case, before the court concerned. Therefore, the learned Single Judge found that the very basis for issuing Ext.P19 communication to the firm did not survive. Therefore, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed Ext.P19. The firm had filed an application for renewing the quarrying lease. The authority concerned had issued Ext.P23 communication to the firm stating that the aforesaid application could not be considered till the disposal of the writ petition.

¶91

W.A.No.2023 of 2018,

¶92

W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2018 8 &

¶93

W.P.C.No.38589 of 2018

¶94

The learned Single Judge directed the authority concerned to consider

¶95

the application for renewal of lease submitted by the firm, in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment in the writ petition, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the firm. The appeal is filed challenging the aforesaid judgment.

¶96

W.P.(C) No.12276/2018

¶97

The writ petitioner is the appellant in W.A.No.2023/2018. The writ petition is filed by him to issue a direction to the Director, Mining and Geology Department, the 4^th respondent in the writ petition, to cancel the quarrying lease granted to the firm and to realise from the firm the royalty for the excess quantity of granite stone extracted by the firm and also to take penal action against the firm for conducting illegal quarrying operation.

¶98

The sum and substance of the averments in the writ petition can be stated as follows: The writ petitioner is residing very near to the quarry and the crusher unit conducted by the firm. The firm has obtained quarrying lease for a period of ten years from 14.07.2008 to 13.07.2018. The firm has already extracted granite stone in excess of the quantity permitted and also from excess area. Due to the illegal quarrying operations conducted by the firm,

¶99

W.A.No.2023 of 2018,

¶100

W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2018 &

¶101

¶102

W.P.C.No.38589 of 2018

¶103

intensive pollution is caused. As per the quarrying lease, the firm is entitled to extract only 20,000 tons of granite stone per year, from an area of 2.632 hectares. On the basis of a complaint filed by the petitioner, the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau conducted a surprise check on 27.06.2014 and found that the firm had extracted granite stone in excess of the permitted quantity. The Vigilance Officer had recommended recovery of an amount of Rs.2,25,12,000/(two crores twenty five lakhs and twelve thousand rupees) from the firm as royalty and also to suspend the licence for quarrying. The aforesaid recommendation was forwarded to the Government and the Government had directed the 4^th respondent (in the writ petition) to measure the excess area from which granite stone was extracted and to take proper action for collecting the royalty. However, the 4^th respondent has not initiated any action against the firm as directed by the Government. On the basis of the complaint filed by the writ petitioner, a vigilance case has been registered against the firm and its partners. The quarrying operation is being conducted by the firm in violation of statutory provisions.

¶104

The firm, the 9^th respondent in the writ petition, filed counter affidavit refuting the allegations made against it. The 4^th respondent in the writ petition also filed counter affidavit narrating the

¶105

W.A.No.2023 of 2018,

¶106

W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2018 &

¶107

¶108

W.P.C.No.38589 of 2018

¶109

steps taken against the firm by the department for extracting granite stones from excess area. The writ petitioner also filed a reply affidavit controverting the contentions raised by the 4^th and the 9^th respondents.

¶110

W.P.(C) No.38589/2018

¶111

This writ petition is filed by the firm seeking a writ of mandamus to the Director, Mining and Geology Department and the Geologist to consider and dispose of the application for renewal of the quarrying lease submitted by it, without any delay.

¶112

The application for renewal of the quarrying lease was submitted by the firm on 20.07.2018. It is alleged that the authorities concerned have not taken steps to process the application and that inordinate delay is being caused in considering and disposing of the application.

¶113

We have heard the learned counsel for all the parties and also the learned Government Pleader.

¶114

Admittedly, the firm had obtained a valid quarrying lease to conduct quarrying operation for a period of ten years from 14.07.2008 to 13.07.2018 in the land having an extent of 2.632 hectares. Ext. P19 'stop memo' dated 10.02.2017 was issued by the Senior Geologist directing the firm to stop the quarrying operations in the land. The

¶115

W.A.No.2023 of 2018,

¶116

W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2018 &

¶117

¶118

W.P.C.No.38589 of 2018

¶119

reason stated for issuing such a direction was that the firm had illegally acquired the land and a vigilance case had been registered in the matter. The learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P19 on the ground that the basis for issuing Ext.P19 did not survive because the investigating officer had filed refer report in the vigilance case in the court concerned. We find no error or illegality in the impugned judgment through which Ext.P19 was quashed. Moreover, the period of the quarrying lease granted to the firm has now expired and the matter has become infructuous. In these circumstances, the writ appeal, which is filed by a third party, is liable to be dismissed.

¶120

In W.P.(C) No.12276/2018, the writ petitioner has got a

¶121

plea that the firm had extracted granite stone in excess of the quantity permitted and also from excess area of land.

¶122

One of the prayers in W.P.(C) No.12276/2018 is to issue direction to the authorities concerned to suspend the quarrying lease granted to the firm. The period of the quarrying lease granted to the firm is now over and this prayer has become infructuous.

¶123

Another relief sought in W.P.(C) No.12276/2018 is to issue a direction to the authority concerned to measure the area of the land in which quarrying operations were conducted by the firm and to realise royalty from the firm for the excess quantity of granite stone

¶124

W.A.No.2023 of 2018,

¶125

W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2018 &

¶126

¶127

W.P.C.No.38589 of 2018

¶128

mined by it and also to take penal action against the firm.

¶129

The counter affidavit filed by the Director, Mining and Geology Department (who is the 4^th respondent in W.P.(C) No.12276/2018) reveals that the area of land upon which the firm had encroached and conducted quarrying operations was measured and it was found that the firm had illegally extracted 2942.972 cubic metre of granite from that area of land. It is stated in the counter affidavit that an amount of Rs.5,29,735/- was realised from the firm as royalty and price for the granite illegally extracted. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the requisite penalty has been levied from the firm for conducting illegal quarrying operations. The counter affidavit of the Director, Mining and Geology Department further reveals that, the restriction regarding the quantity of stone to be extracted, is not applicable to the quarry conducted by the firm since consolidated royalty was being paid by the firm.

¶130

In view of the facts mentioned as above, the prayers made in W.P.(C) No.12276/2018 do not survive for consideration. Of course, the writ petitioner has got dispute with regard to the excess area of land in which quarrying operation was conducted by the firm and also with respect to the quantity of excess granite extracted by the firm. The exact area of the land encroached upon by the firm, the exact

¶131

W.A.No.2023 of 2018,

¶132

W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2018 &

¶133

¶134

W.P.C.No.38589 of 2018

¶135

quantity of granite stones extracted by the firm from such land etc. are matters which could not be decided in a writ petition. If the writ petitioner has got any grievance that the royalty and penalty realised from the firm is insufficient, it is for him to approach the appropriate authorities concerned and to raise his grievances in that regard. It is also to be noted that, merely on the basis of the report of enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Officer and the findings made by him regarding the excess quantity of stone allegedly extracted by the firm, in the absence of any solid proof, the petitioner cannot seek the reliefs prayed for by him in the writ petition.

¶136

Under the above mentioned circumstances, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12276/2018 is not entitled to get any of the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition.

¶137

The firm is the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.38589/2018. The grievance of the firm is that undue delay has been caused by the authorities concerned in processing the application for renewal of the quarrying lease submitted by it. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12276/2018 would submit that a new vigilance case has been registered against the firm and its partners and therefore, the firm is not entitled to get any renewal of the quarrying lease.

¶138

We express no opinion as to whether registration of a

¶139

W.A.No.2023 of 2018,

¶140

W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2018 &

¶141

¶142

W.P.C.No.38589 of 2018

¶143

vigilance case against the firm and its partners is a matter which is relevant for consideration in granting or denying quarrying lease to the firm. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12276/2018 can raise all his grievances against renewal of lease before the authority concerned.

¶144

Consequently, W.A.No.2023/2018 is dismissed. The first and the second respondents in W.P.(C) No.38589/2018 are directed to consider and dispose of the application for renewal of quarrying lease (Ext.P14 in that writ petition) in accordance with law, at an early date, at any rate within a period of two months from today, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No.38589/2018 and W.P.(C) No.12276/2018. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶145

(sd/-)

¶146

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE

¶147

(sd/-)

¶148

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE

¶149

jsr/12/07/2019

¶150

W.A.No.2023 of 2018,

¶151

W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2018 &

¶152

¶153

W.P.C.No.38589 of 2018

¶154

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12276/2018

¶155

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶156

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 17-6- 2008 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE, DATED 14-7-2008
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.SC- 58/2014/KKD, DATED NIL-9-2014
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY LETTER NO.E12(SC 58/2014/KKD) 16249/2014, DATED 17-8-2015 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.7 TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.21239/A1/15/ID DATED 26-9-2015 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT TO RESPONDENT NO.4
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.D.O.Z/M.2108/16 DATED 3-11-2016 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 RESPONDENT NO.4
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE SITE INSPECTION REPORT DATED 2-11-2016 PREPARED BY RESPONDENT NO.5
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.D.O.Z/M.2265/16 DATED 15-12-2016 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.D.O.Z/M.2388/16 DATED 21-12-2016 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF FIR NO.3/2017, DATED 25-1-2017, ON THE FILE OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOZHIKODE
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.D.O.Z/M.2216/2015 DATED 6-3-2017 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 RESPONDENT NO.4

¶157

W.A.No.2023 of 2018,

¶158

W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2018 &

¶159

¶160

W.P.C.No.38589 of 2018

¶161

EXHIBIT P12	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.D.O.NO.21239/A1/2015/ID DATED 11-08-2017 ISSUED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES (A) DEPARTMENT
EXHIBIT P13	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.10484/M4/2015, DATED 15-11-2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4
EXHIBIT P14	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.D.O.Z/M 2216/15 DATED 4-12-2017 SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 TO RESPONDENT NO.4
EXHIBIT P15	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 6-12-2017 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5
EXHIBIT P16	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20-12-2017 SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.9
EXHIBIT P17	A TRUE COPY OF THE SATELLITE MAP OBTAINED THROUGH GOOGLE MAPS HAVING PERIMETER 929.855M
EXHIBIT P18	A TRUE COPY OF THE SATELLITE MAP HAVING PERIMETER OF 924 M
EXHIBIT P19	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20-3-2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.2081 OF 2017
EXHIBIT P20	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/5/2018 IN CMP NO.24 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOZHIKODE
EXHIBIT P21	A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN O.P(crl) NO.565 OF 2018 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P22	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10/7/2018 SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO.9
EXHIBIT P23	A TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT DATED 5/9/2018 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST

¶162

W.A.No.2023 of 2018,

¶163

W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2018 &

¶164

¶165

W.P.C.No.38589 of 2018

¶166

9TH RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶167

EXHIBIT R9(A) 05.07.1996	A TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED
EXHIBIT R9(B)	A TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED NO.3703/2008 OF KOZHIKODE SUB REGISTRY DATED 14.07.2008
EXHIBIT R9(C)	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 06.02.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN O.P.(Crl) 132/2017
EXHIBIT R9(D)	A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 06.02.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN O.P.(Crl) 132/2017
EXHIBIT R9(E)	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.02.2018 IN O.P. (Crl) 132/2017
EXHIBIT R9(F)	TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DATED 24.01.2017
EXHIBIT R9(G)	TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DATED 25.01.2017
EXHIBIT R9(H)	TRUE COPY OF THE QUICK VERIFICATION REPORT DATED 26.03.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VACB, KOZHIKODE UNIT
EXHIBIT R9(I)	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2008 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 9TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R9(J)	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.05.2009 BEARING NO.4836/M3/2005 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 9TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R9(K)	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.01.2015 ISSUED BY THE THAHSILDAR KOZHIKODE TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R9(L)	A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.28/2017 OF MUKKOM POLICE STATION KOZHIKODE.

¶168

4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶169

EXHIBIT R4(a):	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR.
EXHIBIT R4(b):	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF VIGILANCE & ANTI

¶170

W.A.No.2023 of 2018,

¶171

W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2018 &

¶172

¶173

W.P.C.No.38589 of 2018

¶174

CORRUPTION BUREAU DATED 21.02.2018 EXHIBIT R4(c): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.01.2018 EXHIBIT R4(d): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.12.2016 EXHIBIT R4(e): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A1-35630/16 DATED 19.04.2017 EXHIBIT R4(f): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.05.2018 EXHIBIT R4(g): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.01.2015 2ND RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH

¶175

W.A.No.2023 of 2018,

¶176

W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2018

¶177

¶178

W.P.C.No.38589 of 2018

¶179

¶180

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38589/2018

¶181

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶182

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY 5.7.1996	OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY NO 2307/19 SRI.PAUL	OF THE ASSIGNEMENT DEED BEARING 96 DATED 19.6.1996 EXECUTED BY
EXHIBIT P2 A	TRUE COPY 2308/1996 SRI.PAUL.	OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO DATED 19.6.1996 EXECUTED BY
EXHIBIT P2 B	TRUE COPY 2309/1996 SRI.PAUL	OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO DATED 19.6.1996 EXECUTED BY
EXHIBIT P2 C	TRUE COPY 2516/1996 SRI.PAUL	OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO DATED 19.6.1996 EXECUTED BY
EXHIBIT P2 D	TRUE COPY 2517/1996 SRI.PAUL	OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO DATED 19.6.1996 EXECUTED BY
EXHIBIT P2 E	TRUE COPY 2518/1996 SRI.PAUL	OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO DATED 19.6.1996 EXECUTED BY
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY KOZHIKODE	OF THE LEASE DEED NO.3703/2008 OF SUB REGISTRY.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY 21.8.2018	OF THE D &O LICENSE DATED ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY 31.3.2018 RUNNING TH	OF THE D&O LICENSE DATED ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH FOR E CRUSHER.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY EXPLOSIVES	OF THE LICENSE DATED 6.3.2015 THE JOINT CONTROLLER OF .
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY CONTROL BO	OF THE CONSENT DATED 25.5.2018 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION ARD.

¶183

W.A.No.2023 of 2018,

¶184

W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2018

¶185

¶186

¶187

W.P.C.No.38589 of 2018

¶188

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED 27.6.2015 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OR RENEWAL OF LICENSE DATED 26.7.2018 ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE DATED 10..2015 ISSUED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 22.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 4974/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.7.2018 FOR RENEWAL OF LEASE ALONG WITH CHALLAN RECEIPT. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 27.3.2018 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF CONSOLIDATED ROYALTY FOR THE PERIOD 201819. EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN WPC NO 12276/2018 EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 26.9.2018 FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN IN WPC NO 12276/2018 EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.5.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIL JUDGE,KOZHIKODE IN CMP NO.24/2018 True copy PS TO JUDGE

Basheer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basheer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vazhayil Usman, Vs the Special Tahasildar(La)

Abdul Nizar, Vs the Special Tahsildar (La)

M.P.Muhammed Faizal Vs the Special Tahsildar(La)

Nl Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs

M/S Malabar Cements Ltd., Valayar, Palakkad Vs Shri K.Baburajan

Basheer P.K Vs M/S. Ponoorpoyil Granites