Disposed

Black Diamond Rock Products LLP v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Dec 2022WP(C)/31484/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A partnership firm approached the High Court of Kerala seeking direction to entrust its quarrying permit application to a new officer due to delay and inadequate permission by the Geologist, citing fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) and impact of lockdown on extraction.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents to conclude the inspection scheduled for 13.12.2022 expeditiously and pass orders on the petitioner's permit application within 15 days from the conclusion of the inspection.

Black Diamond Rock Products LLP Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 31484 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BLACK DIAMOND ROCK PRODUCTS LLP REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER GEORGE V.MANGALY, MANJAPARA, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 581.

¶8

BY ADVS. BABY KURIAKOSE M.V.ASHIM

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2 DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MINING & GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶12

3 JOINT SECRETARY INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶13

4 GEOLOGIST MINING AND GEOLOGY DISTRICT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 030.

¶14

BY SRI. ASWIN SETHUMADHAVAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C) No.31484/2022

: 2 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

W.P.(C) No.31484 of 2022

¶21

Dated this the 2^nd day of December, 2022

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶24

The petitioner, a Partnership Firm engaged in the business of manufacturing granite (Building Stone), metal and allied products, has approached this Court seeking to direct the 1^st respondent to entrust any other Geologist or superior officer to consider the Permit application submitted by the petitioner on 01.12.2020. The petitioner has also sought for an enquiry against the acts and omissions of the 4^th respondent.

¶25

The petitioner states that the petitioner-Firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing granite (Building stone), metal and allied products. More than 200 families are depending on the petitioner's industry for their livelihood. The

¶26

W.P.(C) No.31484/2022

¶27

: 3 :

¶28

4^th respondent issued 3^rd Quarrying Permit to the petitioner with validity till 06.01.2021. The 3^rd Quarrying Permit was for extraction of 89941.05 MT Minerals. Even though 89941.05 MT was allotted to the petitioner, the petitioner was not able to extract the entire quantity due to the lockdown imposed by both the State and Central Governments in connection with the Covid-19 pandemic.

¶29

Later, the 1^st respondent issued Ext.P5 order directing the Geology Department to extend the validity period of all Quarrying Permits, which were valid in 2020 and 2021, up to 11.02.2022. The petitioner also applied for time extension of the permit along with application for fresh permit. The 4^th respondent has not issued either fresh Quarrying Permit or extension, which leads to the closing of the petitioner's quarry and allied industries.

¶30

Later, the 2^nd respondent has issued Ext.P6 Circular explaining the position of the Department regarding extension of Permit, to all Geologists. As per the approved mining plan and KOMPAS, the official system which controls

¶31

W.P.(C) No.31484/2022

¶32

: 4 :

¶33

and regulates quarrying operations, a quantity of 53,007 MT has already been extracted by the petitioner and balance quantity of 73,889 MT is pending for extraction. But, when the petitioner applied for extension, the 4^th respondent has issued permission to extract 36,934.5 MT only and the validity for the extraction was shown as three months. The 4^th respondent had committed a mistake in limiting the quantity and period by Ext.P7 letter. The decision of the 4^th respondent in Ext.P7 is against the spirit of Ext.P5 Government Order as well as Ext.P6 Circular.

¶34

Aggrieved by Ext.P7 limited permission, the petitioner filed Appeal No.131/2021 before the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner had submitted application for quarrying permit for 3^rd year on 07.12.2020. But, in view of the legal embargo due to the National Green Tribunal judgment, fixing the safety zone of quarries as 200 metres from dwelling houses, the application submitted by the petitioner was kept in abeyance. Later, this Court set aside the order of the National Green Tribunal and remanded the

¶35

W.P.(C) No.31484/2022

¶36

: 5 :

¶37

matter to NGT for fresh consideration. But, the 4^th respondent waited till the judgment of the Apex Court is pronounced, in respect of distance from dwelling houses from quarry. Later, the Supreme Court was pleased to uphold the finding of this Court.

¶38

The 3^rd respondent allowed Appeal No.131/2021 by Ext.P8 order permitting the petitioner for mining the balance quantity in the KOMPAS and time was extended up to 11.02.2022. But, the 4^th respondent allowed time only up to 26.01.2022. There was a specific direction to the 4^th respondent in Ext.P8 Government Order, to consider the Permit Application submitted by the petitioner for the 3^rd year. But, that was not considered by the 4^th respondent.

¶39

Thereupon, the 4^th respondent has issued Ext.P9 show-cause notice to the petitioner alleging over extraction by the petitioner, without any evidence. On receipt of Ext.P9, the petitioner submitted Ext.P10 reply. The 4^th respondent denied personal hearing to the petitioner and issued Ext.P11

¶40

W.P.(C) No.31484/2022

¶41

: 6 :

¶42

order directing the petitioner to remit royalty and cost for the alleged extra excavation.

¶43

Aggrieved by Ext.P11 order, the petitioner filed Appeal No.34/2022 before the 3^rd respondent and the appeal was dismissed by Ext.P12 order without application of mind. Now, the petitioner has filed a Second Appeal against Ext.P12 order the 1^st respondent.

¶44

The petitioner approached this Court with a main prayer for a direction to the 1^st respondent to entrust any other Geologist or officer to consider the Permit application submitted by the petitioner on 07.12.2020 before the 4^th respondent.

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Geologist is duty bound to comply with the direction of the Joint Secretary, Industries Department in the statutory Appeal and also to comply with the Government Order issued by the Secretary, Industries Department, to protect the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Article

¶46

W.P.(C) No.31484/2022

¶47

: 7 :

¶48

19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India for freedom to carry business.

¶49

The 4^th respondent resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 4^th respondent stated that according to the petitioner, the quantity (89941.5 MT) allotted vide Quarrying Permit No.24/19-20/MM/GS/QP/DOE/2147/E2/19 could not be completely extracted due to Covid crisis and hence requested the Geologist, Ernakulam to give permission to extract the balance quantity by extending the benefit of GO (Rt) No.203/2021/ID dated 12.02.2021 and Government letters dated 16.07.2021, 27.08.2021, 03.11.2021 and GO (Rt) No.1372/2021/ID dated 18.12.2021.

¶50

The Government as per letter dated 03.11.2021 had directed the 4^th respondent to assess the petitioner's quarry by conducting joint inspection with Village Officer / Taluk Surveyor and submit a report. Accordingly, on 21.12.2021, the petitioner's quarry was jointly inspected by the Geologist, Ernakulam, Village Officer, Ayyampuzha and Taluk Surveyor, Aluva in the presence of Sri. Raju George,

¶51

W.P.(C) No.31484/2022

¶52

: 8 :

¶53

representative of the petitioner. The 4^th respondent received the report of the Taluk Surveyor on 04.02.2022.

¶54

The said report revealed that the quantity of

¶55

granite illicitly mined from the petitioner's quarry was 77676.72 MT. The petitioner has violated the Mining Plan and Quarrying Permit conditions by illicitly mining and illegally transporting granite. In the circumstances, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice on 07.02.2022 for which the petitioner gave a reply on 09.02.2022. The 4^th respondent has not taken any further action against the petitioner as the petitioner filed appeal petition before the Joint Secretary, Industries Department on 22.02.2022.

¶56

Later, as per GO (Rt) No.904/2022/ID dated 22.08.2022, the appeal petition was disposed of by entrusting the Director of Mining and Geology to form a Committee consisting of Taluk Surveyor, Village Officer and Geologist from the Directorate of Mining and Geology to conduct an inspection in the presence of the petitioner in

¶57

W.P.(C) No.31484/2022

¶58

: 9 :

¶59

order to verify whether illicit mining has taken place. The petitioner has also been asked to maintain the height and width of benches as 6 metres and to submit a compliance report in the District Office of the Department of Mining and Geology, Ernakulam. The Government has suffered royalty loss due to the illegal mining by the petitioner. The application of the petitioner for renewal of Quarrying Permit can be considered only after recovering dues payable to the Government.

¶60

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶61

When the writ petition came up for hearing today, the Senior Government Pleader submitted that an inspection to assess the illegal mining and royalty dues, if any, is scheduled to be held on 13.12.2022 and after the assessment, a final decision on the permit application submitted by the petitioner can be taken.

¶62

W.P.(C) No.31484/2022

¶63

: 10 :

¶64

In view of the impending inspection, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to conclude the inspection scheduled to be held on 13.12.2022 expeditiously. Orders on the permit application submitted by the petitioner shall be passed within 15 days from the date of conclusion of the inspection.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶67

aks/06.12.2022

¶68

W.P.(C) No.31484/2022

¶69

: 11 :

¶70

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31484/2022

¶71

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶72

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE STARTUP REGIST CERTIFICATE.	RATION
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRON CLEARANCE NO.58/2018 ISSUE	MENTAL D BY
	DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL	IMPACT
	ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY ( ERNAKULAM.	DEIAA)
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO O ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NO.PCB/EKM/DO-1/OA-283/14 26/10/2019.	PERATE STATE FILE DATED
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE MINING PLAN.	OF THE
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT NO.203/2021/ID DATED 12/02/2021 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.	ORDER ISSUED
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE CI NO.10972/M3/2020 DATED 09/0 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.	RCULAR 3/2021
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/ ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.	4/2021
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT NO.1372/2021/ID DATED 18/12/2021	ORDER .
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE DATED 7/2/2022.	NOTICE
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY	DATED
	08/02/2022 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER.	THE
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.4 22/D.O.E./2147/E2/19 DATED 18/ ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.	35/21- 2/2022
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT NO.904/2022/ID DATED 22/08/2022 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.	ODER ISSUED

¶73

W.P.(C) No.31484/2022

¶74

: 12 :

¶75

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/08/2021 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF MINES SAFETY BENGALURU Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/04/202 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF MINES SAFETY BENGALURU

¶76

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶77

EXHIBIT R4(a) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. A4/131/21/ID DATED 03.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES (A) DEPARTMENT, TO THIS RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR, ALUVA ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, ALUVA DATED 04.02.2022.

¶78

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶79

Exhibit P15 TRUE PHOTOS OF THE QUARRY PIT SHOWING THE CUTTING OF WEATHERED ROCK AND WASTE EARTH

Black Diamond Rock Products LLP v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Black Diamond Rock Products LLP 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

Fathima Shaniba Vs Bijumon

Sasidharan C. Vs State of Kerala

Somasekharan Nair Vs Nellikuzhy Grama Panchayat

Crosslite Infra Private Limited Vs Pravsha Projects Private Limited

Crystal Granites Limited Vs the Joint General Manager

G.K.Granites Vs the Joint General Manager