Kerala High Court
Suresh Babu. S vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2025
W.P.(C) No.19129 of 2025
- 1 -
2025:KER:54240
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 19129 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SURESH BABU. S,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O SADASIVAN,
NOW RESIDING AT BUILDING NUMBER 10/110 A,
VADANAKURISSI P.O, SHORNUR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679121
BY ADV SRI.BINU PAUL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
INDUSTRIES (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001
2 DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY KESAVADASAPURAM,
PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
3 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
DISTRICT OFFICE,
TOWN BUS STAND COMPLEX,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678014
W.P.(C) No.19129 of 2025
- 2 -
2025:KER:54240
4 NILA SANDROCK GRANITES PVT. LTD,
X/110 A,. VADANAMKURUSSI, P.O., SHORNUR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 679121
BY ADV.
SRI.SHINE MATHEWS(VADAKKEKARA)
SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.19129 of 2025
- 3 -
2025:KER:54240
JUDGMENT
Petitioner applied for a quarrying license on 10.01.2018. He produced all statutory permits and licenses including NOCs. However, vide Ext.P6, his application for a quarrying lease was refused for the reason that he was previously the Managing Director in the 4th respondent Company, which failed to produce a mining closure plan to the concerned department in terms of Rule 59 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules (for short, 'the KMMC Rules').
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, and also, learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
3. This Court notice that the present petitioner was the Managing Director of the 4th respondent, but he retired vide Ext.P1 on 13.01.2025. His retirement was accepted by the Company and a resolution in this regard has already been passed. Now, the respondents 1 to 3 are harping on Rule 51(2). W.P.(C) No.19129 of 2025
- 4 -
2025:KER:54240 Rule 51(2) applies in a case, where any amount is due to the Government from any person/firm/Company on account of mining of minor minerals. Again Rule 51(2) interdicts grant of a further mining lease for such person/firm/Company or association only; and not to a third person. In the instant case, there is no dues, whatsoever, from the petitioner to the Government. Not only that, if at all any amount is found to be due in future, the same can only be against the 4 th respondent Company, since the Company is a separate juristic person. The retired Managing Director cannot be held liable for that dues. This Court also notice that it is not the 4 th respondent Company, but the petitioner who had sought for a fresh mining lease, that too, in respect of a different property altogether, as could be seen from the difference in the survey numbers.
4. This Court is therefore of the opinion that Ext.P6 cannot be sustained. Importantly, there is no provision in Rule 51 for not granting a fresh mining lease on account of a default, or for that matter, a violation on the part of the project W.P.(C) No.19129 of 2025
- 5 -
2025:KER:54240 proponent in respect of his earlier project, a serious lacuna in the Rules of the State Government.
5. In the light of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P6 will stand quashed. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent Director to issue mining lease to the petitioner, uninfluenced by the so called default on the part of the 4th respondent Company in not filing the mining closure plan in terms of Rule 59 of the KMMC Rules, provided the petitioner satisfies all other parameters as required by law for the issuance of mining lease. The above directions shall be complied within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2 nd respondent, for compliance.
This Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE ww W.P.(C) No.19129 of 2025
- 6 -
2025:KER:54240 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19129/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO SANDROCK GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 13.01.2025 PASSED BY SANDROCK GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT DATED 14.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 13.03.2024.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.04.2025.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST; PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 DATED 19.05.2025.