Kerala High Court
Kripesh C.K. vs State Of Kerala on 11 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.29038 OF 2019(D)
PETITIONERS:
1 KRIPESH C.K., AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. KUTTIKRISHNAN NAIR, ANASWARA, DREAM LAND
VILLA, PUTHUPPANAM, VADAYAMPADI P O, PUTHENCRUZ,
ERNAKULAM-682308.
2 NIKHIL PETER, AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. PETER T.C., THATTAPPILLIL HOUSE,
VADAYAMPADI P O, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM-682308.
3 JOSE T. VARGHESE, AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.T.U VARGHESE, THOTTAPPILLIL HOUSE, VADAYAMPADI
P O, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM-682308.
4 SHAINESH G.V, AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. UNNI MADHAVAN, DREAM LAND VILLA,
VADAYAMPADI P O, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM-682308.
BY ADV. SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE GEOLOGIST,
DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
DISTRICT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682030.
4 VIJU M ITTOOP,
MYKULANGARA HOUSE, KINGINIMATTOM P O, KOLENCHERRY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682310.
R4 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
R4 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN THOMAS
R4 BY ADV. SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN
R4 BY ADV. SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL
R4 BY ADV. SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA
R4 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
SRI. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-
01-2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).4528/2020(M), WP(C).4916/2020(L), THE
COURT ON 11-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.29038 of 2019
--------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are persons residing within the limits of
Aikkaranadu South Village in Ernakulam District. On the
strength of Ext.P2 quarrying lease, the fourth respondent has
been operating a quarry in the vicinity of the residences of the
petitioners intermittently from 02.05.2019. According to the
petitioners, Ext.P2 quarrying lease granted to the fourth
respondent on 21.11.2008 had elapsed on the expiry of two
years, by virtue of the provisions contained in the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the
Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, as the fourth
respondent has failed to undertake mining operations within
two years from 21.11.2008. It is stated by the petitioners that
though movement permits have been issued by the third
respondent to the fourth respondent initially on the strength
of Ext.P2 quarrying lease, when a doubt arose as to whether
Ext.P2 quarrying lease had elapsed by operation of law, the
third respondent stopped issuing movement permits to the
W.P.(C) No.29038 of 2019
..4..
fourth respondent and sought clarification from the second
respondent, the Director of Mining and Geology as to the
further course of action. Aggrieved by the said conduct of the
third respondent, the fourth respondent has approached this
Court by filing W.P.(C) No.15110 of 2019 and the said writ
petition was disposed of directing the second respondent to
issue the clarification sought by the third respondent. Ext.P7 is
the order passed by this Court in this regard. Pursuant to
Ext.P7 order, the second respondent has passed Ext.P8 order
clarifying that Ext.P2 quarrying lease has not elapsed. Ext.P8
order is under challenge in the writ petition.
2. When the matter was taken up, the learned
counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that Ext.P2
quarrying lease was granted only for the period up to
20.11.2020 and the fourth respondent is therefore, not
operating the quarry anymore.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners then
pointed out that extensive damage has been caused to the
W.P.(C) No.29038 of 2019
..5..
properties of the petitioners on account of the operation of the
quarry by the fourth respondent and the petitioners therefore,
propose to institute civil suits for recovery of damages from the
fourth respondent. It was also pointed out by the petitioners
that if the petitioners leave Ext.P8 order unchallenged, they
may face difficulties in claiming damages from the fourth
respondent in the proposed suits. The learned counsel,
therefore requested the court to examine the correctness of
Ext.P8 decision of the second respondent notwithstanding the
fact that the term of Ext.P2 quarrying lease has expired.
4. Insofar as the petitioners do not dispute the
fact that the term of Ext.P2 quarrying lease has expired, it is
unnecessary for this Court to examine the correctness of
Ext.P8 order, for this Court cannot grant any relief to the
petitioners on that basis.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of
making it clear that this judgment will not preclude the civil
courts from examining the correctness of Ext.P8 order, if
W.P.(C) No.29038 of 2019
..6..
required, for the purpose of granting relief to the petitioners in
the suits proposed by them.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
ds 07.01.2021
W.P.(C) No.29038 of 2019
..7..
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29038/2019
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
11.11.2008 PASSED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE DATED
21.11.2008.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINING PLAN AS
APPROVED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT ON
31.09.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MOVEMENT PERMIT DATED
02.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE THIRD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
FILED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN WP(C)
NO.15110/2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
14.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE THIRD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP(C) NO.
15110/2019 DATED 09.07.2019 PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
SECOND RESPONDENT IN THE MONTH OF
JULY, 2019.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SITE VERIFICATION
REPORT PREPARED BY THE ASSISTANT
DISTRICT GEOLOGIST DATED 05.11.2019
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION
OF THE DOCUMENT MARKED AS EXHIBIT P9
W.P.(C) No.29038 of 2019
..8..
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION
OF THE DOCUMENT MARKED AS EXHIBIT P8
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT-R4(1) TRUE LEGIBLE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED
EXECUTEDBETWEEN THE RESPONDENT HEREIN
AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT ON 21-11-
2019.
EXHIBIT-R4(2) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT
FILED IN O.S.NO.53 OF 2019.
EXHIBIT R4(3) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25-9-2019
IN I.A.NO. 337/2019 IN O.S.NO.53 OF
2019 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLENCHERRY.
EXHIBIT R4(4) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2-11-2019
IN I.A NO.337/2019 IN O.S NO.53 OF
2019 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLENCHERRY.
EXHIBIT R4(5) TRUE COPY OF THE FULL SET OF
COMMISSION REPORT DATED 28-9-2019 IN
O.S.NO.53 OF 2019 FILED BEFORE THE
MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLENCHERRY ALONG
WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT R4(6) PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE QUARRY OPERATED BY
THE NAVEEN CHERIAN POOVELIL.
