contained in the quarrying permit. Merely because the appellant secured registration for the metal crusher unit in contemplation of rule 89 of Rules, 2015, to have the advantage of consolidated payment of royalty, nowhere in the Rules, appellant is permitted to carry on the quarrying operations without any restriction for quantity. It is an admitted fact that, as per the quarrying permit, appellant is permitted to carry out quarrying operations to a limited extent alone. Therefore, there is no force in the contention advanced by the appellant with respect to the privilege of the appellant to carry out the quarrying operations irrespective of any limit prescribed in the quarrying permit and the registration granted to the metal crusher unit, since no such privilege is conferred as per rule 89 of Rules, 2015. Which thus also means that the payment enjoyed under CRP system is not a panacea for the appellant to overlook the conditions of the quarrying permit granted, which are mandatory and imperative in nature and character. This issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Binoy Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors. [2019(2)KHC 531], wherein the question was whether a person who has registration to the metal crusher unit is entitled to carry out quarrying operations without any limit prescribed under the quarrying permit, vis-a-vis the action taken by the authority under Rules, 2015, for realising the royalty charges and other payments
