Allowed

Ashique Ali v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Mar 2022WP(C)/607/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Director of Mining and Geology to reconsider the petitioner's mining lease application, excluding a condition requiring a 'No Dues Certificate,' and to issue fresh orders within one month after hearing the petitioner, subject to relevant pending litigation outcomes.

What did the court decide?

Reconsideration of mining lease application directed excluding the second condition in Ext.P24; fresh orders to be issued within one month after hearing the petitioner.

Ashique Ali Vs State of Kerala — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 607 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ASHIQUE ALI, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.A.A.ALI, ANDETH HOUSE, MEKKALADY, KALADY, PIN - 683 111. BY ADVS.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JOSEPH GEORGE M.A.AZEEZ MUSHTAQUE

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

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

¶10

2 THE TAHSILDAR, ALUVA TALUK, MINI CIVIL STATION, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTT., PIN - 683 101.

¶11

3 THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), ALUVA TALUK, MINI CIVIL STATION, ALUVA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTT., PIN - 683 101.

¶12

4 DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM DISTT., CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682 030.

¶13

5 DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶14

BY ADV.SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SR.GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 607 OF 2022

¶17

-2-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner impugns Ext.P24, in particular, condition No.2 therein imposed by the Director of Mining and Geology, asking him to produce a 'No Dues Certificate' from the Revenue Department, with respect to the property over which he has now sought for a Mining Lease.

¶20

The petitioner says that there are

¶21

disputes with respect to the quantum of seigniorage relating to the conduct of a quarry in the property in question in the past; and that

¶22

orders of the competent Authorities have been challenged by him in W.P.(C) No.14252/2021, which is still pending before this Court. He says that

¶23

an interim order has been issued in the said writ petition, directing him to remit penalty at the rate of Rs.2.50 per MT, which has been complied with and therefore, that the second condition in

¶24

WP(C) NO. 607 OF 2022

¶25

-3-

¶26

Ext.24 impugned order in this writ petition is incompetent and virtually in gross disregard to the orders of this Court. The petitioner thus prays that the second condition in Ext.P24 be set aside and the Director of Mining and Geology be ordered to reconsider his application for Mining Lease de hors the same.

¶27

The afore contentions of the petitioner, as argued by his learned counsel – Sri.M.A.Abdul Hakhim, were countered by the learned Senior Government Pleader – Smt.K.Amminikutty, saying that if the petitioner only requires his application to be reconsidered based on the interim order of this Court dated 13.08.2021 in W.P.(C)No.14252/2021, the 5^th respondent – Director of Mining and Geology, is willing to do so. She, however, submitted that any order to be issued by the said Authority may be clarified to be subject to the final orders of this Court in W.P.

¶28

WP(C) NO. 607 OF 2022

¶29

-4-

¶30

(C)No.14252/2021 and that the petitioner will have

¶31

to remit the amounts as determined by this Court in the said writ petition at the appropriate time.

¶32

I must say that the afore suggestion of

¶33

the learned Senior Government Pleader is the best available to the petitioner also, in the given circumstances.

¶34

In the conspectus of the above, I order this

¶35

writ petition and direct the 5^th respondent – Director of Mining and Geology, to reconsider the application of the petitioner for the grant of

¶36

Mining Lease de hors the second condition in Ext.P24 and issue appropriate fresh orders thereon, after affording him an opportunity of

¶37

being heard, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

I make it clear that the grant of Mining Lease

¶39

by the 5^th respondent in terms of the afore

¶40

WP(C) NO. 607 OF 2022

¶41

-5-

¶42

directions will be subject to any orders to be issued by this Court in W.P.(C)No.14252/2021; and if it is to be found that he is liable to pay larger amounts than what has been ordered in the interim order dated 13.08.2021, he will be liable

¶43

to do so.

¶44

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶45

akv

¶46

WP(C) NO. 607 OF 2022

¶47

-6-

¶48

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 607/2022

¶49

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶50

EXHIBIT P1	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 12/1/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 14/7/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 13/11/2016 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 31/07/2017 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 13/05/2020 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30/08/1977 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF HTE NOTIFICATION DATED 02/02/2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 18/02/2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05/05/2017 PASSED BY THE 3RD

¶51

WP(C) NO. 607 OF 2022

¶52

-7-

¶53

RESPONDENT.

¶54

EXHIBIT P10 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/07/2018 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31/10/2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) 35289/2018. EXHIBIT P12 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF QUARRYING LEASE DATED 10/06/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 07/12/2020 PREPARED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR, ALUVA TALUK.

¶55

EXHIBIT P14 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/05/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶56

EXHIBIT P15 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/06/2021 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶57

EXHIBIT P16 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 13/08/2021 IN WP(C) NO.14252/2021.

¶58

EXHIBIT P17 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 13/09/2021 IN WP(C) NO.14252/2021.

¶59

EXHIBIT P18 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 06/10/2021 IN WP(C) NO.14252/2021.

¶60

EXHIBIT P19 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 04/10/2021.

¶61

WP(C) NO. 607 OF 2022

¶62

-8-

¶63

EXHIBIT P20 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 07/10/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR RECEIPT OF THE PENALTY OF RS.13,10,625/- FROM THE PETITIONER.

¶64

EXHIBIT P21 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER 08/10/2021 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶65

EXHIBIT P22 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 11/10/2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶66

EXHIBIT P23 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TREASURY CHALLAN RECEIPT DATED 13/10/2021 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT TREASURY, ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE PAYMENT OF RS.42,18,841/-.

¶67

EXHIBIT P24 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02/12/2021 SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶68

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

¶69

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Ashique Ali v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashique Ali 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

Siddick P.A Vs the District Collector

Platinum Super Structures Pvt.Ltd., Vs State Bank of India

Mohan R, Vs Tahsildar

Sojan Jacob @ Sojan Vs District Collector

A.A. Pareed, Vs State of Kerala

Sarangadharan Vs Village Officer