Dismissed

The District Collector v. Roby v J

Kerala HC4 Oct 2023WA/1325/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ appeal filed by the District Collector, Idukki. The court held that the learned Single Judge was correct in directing the Collector to grant a No Objection Certificate without examining scientific feasibility or referring to a specific Government Order.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; appellant granted three months to comply with the single judge's directions.

The District Collector Vs Roby v J — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.J.DESAI

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 12TH ASWINA, 1945

¶7

WA NO. 1325 OF 2023

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 36198/2022 OF HIGH COURT

¶9

OF KERALA

¶10

APPELLANT/S:

¶11

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶12

IDUKKI, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA.P.O, PAINAVU, IDUKKI., PIN - 685603 BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

ROBY V J AGED 50 YEARS S/O JOSEPH, VETTATH HOUSE, KUMILY P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT., PIN - 685531

¶15

BY ADV PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

-2-

WA No.1325 of 2023

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 04^th day of October, 2023

¶21

A.J.Desai, C.J.

¶22

By way of the present writ appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, the District Collector, Idukki has challenged the judgment dated 06.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.36198 of 2022.

¶23

The short facts leading up to the impugned

¶24

judgment, are as follows:-

¶25

The respondent/petitioner submitted an application for No Objection Certificate to the appellant, District Collector, way back on 01.01.2018 for excavation of minerals from the

¶26

Government land to the extent of 16.0060 Hectares comprised in Sy.Nos.184/1 and 184/1A of Elappara Village. Even though some action was taken on the application, the No Objection Certificate was not issued. Hence, the respondent filed W.P.(C)

¶27

WA No.1325 of 2023

¶28

-3-

¶29

No.7132 of 2018 and the said writ petition was

¶30

disposed of on 20.03.2018, directing the Tahsildar, Peermade to complete the measurement of the property in question, by availing the service of the Taluk Surveyor within six weeks and to submit a report with regard to the survey conducted to the District Collector, immediately thereafter. On receipt of the report, the

¶31

District Collector was to forthwith process the application submitted by the respondent. As per the direction issued by this Court, the report along with the sketch was submitted to the District Collector. However, the application was not considered. Even after the respondent sent a reminder dated 08.06.2020, there was no response from the part of the District Collector. Hence, the respondent was compelled to file another writ petition (W.P.(C) No.29498 of 2021). Considering

¶32

the factual aspects in the matter, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by

¶33

WA No.1325 of 2023

¶34

-4-

¶35

judgment dated 22.03.2022, with the following directions:

¶36

“In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the application submitted by the petitioner for NOC is liable to be considered and disposed of in the light of the procedure in force, without reference to the Government Order dated 28.01.2021. Appropriate orders shall be passed in the application submitted by the petitioner for NOC, after considering all relevant aspects of the matter, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, without reference to the Government Order dated 28.01.2021.”

¶37

As per the aforesaid direction, the District Collector ultimately passed Ext.P8 order dated 23.09.2022, rejecting the application and refusing to grant NOC. The said order was challenged before the learned Single Judge by filing W.P.(C) No.36198 of 2022 and the District Collector opposed the writ petition by filing counter affidavit. The learned Single Judge, after considering all the facts, allowed the writ

¶38

WA No.1325 of 2023

¶39

-5-

¶40

petition and quashed Ext.P8 order and further directed to consider the application for grant of NOC in accordance with law, mainly on the ground that the District Collector had no authority to examine the scientific feasibility of excavation. Hence, this appeal.

¶41

Learned Special Government Pleader Sri.M.H.Hanil Kumar, would submit that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in quashing and setting aside Ext.P8 order of the District Collector, who, after examining the case in detail, had found it to be not a fit case to grant NOC for excavation of minerals. By taking us through the impugned order, he would contend that the District Collector has taken into account the fact that several natural disasters like flash flood, land slide etc had occurred in Elappara Village during the year 2018 and therefore, deemed it not fit to grant NOC to the respondent. He would further submit that the

¶42

WA No.1325 of 2023

¶43

-6-

¶44

State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority

¶45

(SEIAA) has also rejected a similar type of

¶46

application for excavation in the plot adjacent to the respondent and therefore, the impugned judgment requires to be set aside.

¶47

On the other hand, Philip J.Vettickattu

¶48

learned Advocate appearing for the

¶49

respondent/petitioner submits that an application for grant of quarrying lease under Rule 27 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2015, is to be submitted in Form B under the Rules.

¶50

Along with the application in Form B, the applicant has to supply the documents referred under sub-rule (2) of Rule 27. As per 27(2)(d), No Objection Certificate is required to be issued by the District Collector in case the quarrying lease is with respect to revenue poramboke land. He would submit that, while passing Ext.P8 order dated 23.09.2022, the District Collector travelled beyond the scope of the issues involved

¶51

WA No.1325 of 2023

¶52

-7-

¶53

in the matter. He would submit that the Director

¶54

of Mining and Geology can examine all these issues after obtaining environmental clearance from the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), as provided under Rule 33. He would submit that the District Collector who is to issue the NOC under Rule 27(2)(d) can consider only other aspects pertaining to the plot for which No Objection is sought, since grant of quarrying lease is subject to the procedure prescribed in Rule 33. He would submit that, in the judgment dated 22.03.2022 rendered in W.P.(C)

¶55

No.29498 of 2021, it was made clear by the learned Single Judge that the appellant shall decide the application without referring to the Government Order dated 28.01.2021. This judgment has become final, since no challenge has been made by the State Authority and therefore, the District Collector could not have considered the factors mentioned in the order. Therefore, the

¶56

WA No.1325 of 2023

¶57

-8-

¶58

learned Single Judge has not committed any error

¶59

in issuing the direction. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge has only directed the appellant to consider the application for grant of NOC submitted by the respondent in accordance with law and without reference to the aspect of scientific feasibility and grant the same if the respondent is otherwise entitled.

¶60

We have heard learned Counsel for the

¶61

respective parties.

¶62

It is not in dispute that the respondent applied for No Objection Certificate for the purpose of excavation of minerals by submitting an application under Rule 27(2) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2015. As per Rule 27(2), the application is required to be accompanied by several documents including the No Objection Certificate under Rule 27(2)(d). The application submitted under Form B is to be

¶63

WA No.1325 of 2023

¶64

-9-

¶65

considered by the competent authority under Rule 33. Such authority is supposed to examine all the aspects, including the report of the SEIAA. It is also not in dispute that W.P.(C) No.29498 of 2021 was disposed of making it clear that the NOC is required to be granted without referring to the Government Order dated 28.01.2021 and that judgment has not been challenged by the State. Therefore, the District Collector ought to have considered the application for NOC in accordance with the direction. Learned Single Judge has rightly considered all these aspects and has ultimately passed the impugned judgment directing the District Collector to grant NOC in accordance with law without examining the scientific feasibility and to grant the same if the respondent is otherwise entitled. In view of the observations, which are in consonance with the statutory provisions and the directions in the earlier writ petition, we do not find any reason

¶66

WA No.1325 of 2023

¶67

-10-

¶68

to interfere with the impugned judgment.

¶69

The writ appeal is hence dismissed. The appellant is granted three months time to comply with the directions in the impugned judgment.

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

A.J.Desai Chief Justice

¶72

sd/-

¶73

V.G.Arun Judge

¶74

Scl/

The District Collector v. Roby v J

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The District Collector v. Roby v J

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Sakthidharan Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Chief Secretary

Anoop Antony Vs the Authorized Officer

Kerala State Tug of War Association Vs Union of India

State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department Vs Stephen

State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary, Revenue Vs Moushmi Ann Jacob

Ambily Omanakuttan Vs State of Kerala