Kerala High Court
Rajendra Prasad Vijayan vs The State Of Kerala on 29 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.27949 OF 2018(P)
PETITIONER:
RAJENDRA PRASAD VIJAYAN
S/O.VIJAYAN, AGED 68 YEARS, RAJENDRAVILASOM,
VACHEEKONAM, VAYYANAM PO, AYUR, KOTTARAKKARA,
KOLLAM
BY RAJENDRA PRASAD VIJAYAN(PARTY IN PERSON)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
PATTOM PALACE P.O., KESAVADASAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004
3 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, ASRAMAM,
KOLLAM -691001
4 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION,
KOLLAM -691013
W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 2
5 DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION
KOLLAM, PIN - 691013
6 KARTHIKA METAL CRUSHER,
VACHEEKONAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691 506,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR.BIJU.
7 KARTHIKA GRANITES AND METAL CRUSHER,
KALAYANIMUKKU, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691506
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR.BIJU
8 KARTHIKA GRANITE QUARRY,
VACHEEKONAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691506
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR.BIJU.
9 M/s.ADANI VIZHINJAM PORT PVT. LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ADANI HOUSE,
NR.MITHAKHALI SIX ROADS, NAVARANGPURA,
AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT - 380009
AND HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR,
VIPANCHIKA TOWERS, THYCAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO
MR.RAJESH JHA
10 MR.M.K.BIJU
S/O.M.KARUNAKARAN,
"KARTHIKA,
KUTTIKKAD POST,
KADAKKAL, KOLLAM - 691 536
W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 3
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR (SR.)
SRI.S.BIJU
SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER
SRI.SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS
SRI.K.J.MANURAJ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.BIJU BLAKRISHNAN, AMICUS CURIAE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 08-03-2021, THE COURT ON 29-03-2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of March, 2021.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges in this writ petition
Ext.P12 quarrying lease issued to the tenth respondent for
extraction of granite building stones under the Kerala Minor
Minerals Concession Rules, 2015 (the Rules).
2. The tenth respondent was earlier issued
Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases under the Rules for the very
same purpose, of which Ext.P1 was in respect of 0.7270
hectares of land in Survey Nos.158/6, 158/12-2 and 158/5 of
Ittiva Village and Ext.P2 was in respect of 0.85 hectares of
Government land in Survey No.161 of the very same village.
The said quarrying leases were issued on 24.03.2006 and the
same were valid till 23.03.2018. Ext.P12 quarrying lease was
issued thereafter to the tenth respondent on 17.02.2018 in
respect of 1.0905 hectares of Government and private lands in
Resurvey Nos.158/3, 158/5, 158/6, 158/7-2, 158/8, 158/10,
158/12-2 and 158/11 of Ittiva Village. The case set out by the
petitioner in the writ petition in essence is that on the strength
of Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases, the tenth respondent has
extracted minerals far in excess of the quantity permitted,
flouting the various conditions stipulated therein, and such a
person ought not have been issued a fresh quarrying lease. It is
alleged by the petitioner that on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2
quarrying leases, the tenth respondent has extracted 1,48,296
metric tons of granite stones in excess of the quantity
permitted not only from the Government lands covered by the
quarrying leases, but also from the adjoining Government and
private lands. It is stated by the petitioner that he is residing
within 300 meters from the land covered by Ext.P12 quarrying
lease; that the quarrying activity undertaken by the tenth
respondent in the said land is causing air, water and noise
pollution in the area and that the petitioner is suffering from
various ailments on account of the same.
3. Several affidavits have been filed in the matter
by the petitioner as also the official and party respondents. As I
find that the averments in most of the said affidavits are
irrelevant in the context of the essential question raised by the
petitioner in the writ petition viz, whether the competent
authority under the Rules was justified in issuing Ext.P12
quarrying lease to the tenth respondent, I am referring in this
judgment only to the affidavits which are relevant in the
context.
4. The third respondent, the District Geologist has
filed a counter affidavit in the matter on 07.11.2018 admitting
that the tenth respondent has extracted minerals in excess of
the quantity permitted in terms of Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying
leases. The stand taken by the third respondent in the said
counter affidavit, however, is that the extraction of minerals
over and above the permissible quantity is a compoundable
offence and the offences committed by the tenth respondent in
this regard have been compounded on payment of the sum
payable in terms of Rule 108(2) of the Rules.
5. The tenth respondent has filed a counter
affidavit in the matter on 15.11.2018 stating, among others,
that the petitioner has approached the Munsiff's Court,
Kottarakkara in O.S No.266 of 2017 seeking a decree of
permanent prohibitory injunction restraining him from
conducting quarrying operations in the lands covered by
Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases; that the application for
temporary injunction was rejected by the court and therefore
the writ petition is barred by principles of constructive res
judicata. It was also contended by the tenth respondent in the
counter affidavit that he did not contravene the terms of
Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases; that the petitioner is one of
his close relatives; that the petitioner is residing permanently in
South Africa; that the petitioner visits his family house near the
land covered by Ext.P12 quarrying lease only occasionally; that
the allegations made in the writ petition as regards the
pollution caused on account of the operation of the quarry in
the land covered by Ext.P12 quarrying lease are incorrect and
that the writ petition is one filed by the petitioner who is on
inimical terms with him, without any bona fides, to wreak
vengeance on him.
6. The third respondent has filed an additional
counter affidavit in the matter on 18.10.2019, furnishing the
particulars of the unauthorized extraction of minerals made by
the tenth respondent and the offences committed thereby
which have been compounded by the competent authority.
Among the cases referred to in the said counter affidavit, five
cases pertain to the Government lands in Ittiva Village, of
which two pertain to the Government land covered by Ext.P2
quarrying lease and the remaining three pertain to the
Government and private lands adjoining to the Government
land covered by Ext.P1 quarrying lease. It is stated in the said
counter counter affidavit that a sum of Rs.68,50,849/- has been
collected from the tenth respondent in connection with the
compounding of the said offences.
7. The tenth respondent has filed a reply affidavit
on 05.11.2019 to the additional counter affidavit filed by the
third respondent dated 18.10.2019, stating that only three
cases out of the five cases referred to in the counter affidavit
have been registered in respect of the lands covered by
Ext.P12 quarrying lease and that he has remitted the amounts
claimed in this regard since his application for a fresh quarrying
lease would not have been processed otherwise.
8. The second respondent has filed a counter
affidavit in the matter on 15.11.2019, stating, among others
that in the inspection report forwarded along with the
application preferred by the tenth respondent for the fresh
quarrying lease, only two out of the eight cases mentioned in
the additional counter affidavit filed by the third respondent on
18.10.2019 have been disclosed. The second respondent has
also made available a copy of the proceedings issued by him
for issuing Ext.P12 quarrying lease to the tenth respondent as
Ext.R2(c).
9. It is seen that this Court entertained a doubt in
this matter as to whether a holder of a quarrying lease who has
committed violation of the terms of the lease could still be
issued a fresh quarrying lease taking the stand that the
offences have been compounded, and consequently passed an
interim order on 07.01.2020 directing the official respondents
to file a detailed affidavit enumerating the leases held by the
tenth respondent and nature of violations found earlier,
including the number of compoundings offered to him. The said
interim order reads thus:
"I have commenced hearing these matters today and
have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.M.R.Rajendran Nair,
instructed by Sri.Johnson Gomez, appearing on behalf of the
party respondent - Sri.Biju as also the learned Additional
Advocate General - Sri.Renjith Thamban, assisted by Sri.Hanil
Kumar, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of
the official respondents. I have also heard Dr.Rajendra Prasad
Vijayan - the petitioner who is appearing in person, as also
Sri.Siju Kamalahasanan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28715/2019; Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan,
learned Standing Counsel for the State Environment Impact
Assessment Authority and Sri.Biju Balakrishnan, learned
Amicus Curiae.
2. During hearing, my attention was drawn to the
additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Government on
17.10.02019, wherein the details of the Mining leases of
Sri.Biju, as also the violations allegedly committed by him,
have been placed on record as Annexures R3(a) and R3(b).
Even though the learned Additional Advocate General -
Sri.Renjith Thamban submits that there are only 8 violations,
Sri.Siju Kamalahasanan, learned counsel for the petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.28715/2019, submits that a reply affidavit has been
filed by his client wherein 29 violations have been listed at the
hands of the aforementioned Sri.Biju. Obviously, therefore,
there is real dispute of facts with respect to the number of
violations and the nature of violations, particularly because
Dr.Rajendra Prasad Vijayan, the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.27949/2018, shows this Court Ext.P15 produced in the said
writ petition, wherein various transgressions appear to have
been noticed by the competent Authorities; however, leading
to exoneration of Sri.Biju on payment of the seigniorage, fees,
fines and such other.
3. When I consider all these issues, certain very
acme aspects come to the fore, as to how the competent
Authorities could have allowed the holder of a Mining lease to
commit violations and that too numbering more than 8 (as
stated by the Additional Advocate General) or 29 (as stated by
Sri.Siju Kamalahasanan) and still reward him with extensions
of the mining leases merely because all such offences were
compounded under the provisions of Rule 111 of the Kerala
Minor Mineral Concession Rules. When I say this, it must not
be misunderstood that I have affirmatively concluded that
Sri.Biju has committed the offences as alleged by Sri.Siju
Kamalahasanan but only that this Court requires clarity as to
the real nature of the violations as also as to how these
violations were compounded, leading to renewal of the leases
in favour of Sri.Biju.
4. That said, I must also record the submissions
made on behalf of the State by the learned Additional
Advocate General that the State proposes to amend Rule 51 of
the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules so as to make
renewal of leases restricted or impossible in the cases where
the lease holder violates law and commits serious offences like
over - extraction and trespass into the areas which are not
authorised.
5. I do not propose to say anything further at this
stage because, the learned Additional Advocate General seeks
time to place a detailed affidavit on record enumerating the
leases presently possessed by Sri.Biju and the nature of
violations found earlier, including the number of compounding
offered to him by the competent Authorities.
6. I am of the view that this Court will certainly
require the afore information for a comprehensive assessment
on all the aspects involved in these cases and also that the
learned Amicus Curiae - Sri.Biju Balakrishnan, will be better
equipped by such information, when he makes submissions to
assist this Court.
Further, the learned Additional Advocate General will,
on the next posting date, inform this Court as to the period
within which the State intends to amend Rule 51 of the Kerala
Minor Mineral Concession Rules as stated by him.
I, therefore, adjourn these matters for further
consideration on 15.01.2020."
As revealed from the extracted order, it was represented in the
course of the arguments that the State is proposing to amend
Rule 51 of the Rules so as to refuse renewal of quarrying lease
to persons who have violated the terms of the grant earlier and
this Court, therefore, directed the State to inform the time limit
within which the said amendment would be brought to the
Rules.
10. An additional counter affidavit has been filed
by the Deputy Tahsildar on behalf of the fourth respondent in
the matter on 13.01.2020 pursuant to the interim order dated
07.01.2020, furnishing the information on several short term
permits issued to the tenth respondent on different dates for
conducting quarrying operations in Survey No.161/1 of Ittiva
Village. It is stated in the said counter affidavit that the tenth
respondent extracted more quantity of minerals than what was
permitted based on such permits on several occasions; that 17
Land Conservancy cases have been booked against the tenth
respondent in this regard; that the excess quantity of granite
stones extracted by the tenth respondent was assessed by the
Tahsildar and since the tenth respondent has remitted the
amount assessed as payable by him namely Rs.7,57,543/-, the
said Land Conservancy cases have been closed.
11. The State has filed a counter affidavit in the
matter on 15.01.2020 pursuant to the interim order dated
07.01.2020 stating, among others, that the competent
authority has exercised the discretion to compound the
offences committed by the tenth respondent indiscriminately
without taking into account the magnitude of the offences
committed; that compounding provision is one intended to
ensure that trivial infractions of the Rules do not result in
harassment to the lessee and that the said provision cannot be
used to condone the successive violations of the statutory
provisions involving extraction of large quantity of minerals. It
is also stated in the said counter affidavit that instruction would
be issued to the authorities concerned to refrain from
exercising the compounding power otherwise than in
accordance with law.
12. On 26.06.2019, this Court appointed Sri.Biju
Balakrishnan, an advocate of this Court as amicus curiae in this
matter. The amicus curiae has filed an interim report in this
matter on 20.12.2019 stating, among others, that the Rules do
not prohibit grant of fresh quarrying lease or renewal of
existing quarrying lease to a person on whom proceedings
have been initiated under Rule 108 of the Rules. It is also
stated by the amicus curiae in the report that clause 16 of
Ext.P12 quarrying lease prescribed under the Rules confers
power on the competent authority to revoke the lease granted
to a person, if he commits breach of any of the conditions of
the lease.
13. Heard the petitioner who appeared in person,
the learned Government Pleader as also the learned Senior
Counsel for the tenth respondent.
14. Placing reliance on the various affidavits filed
by the official respondents, the petitioner pointed out that the
tenth respondent has not disputed the fact that several
proceedings have been initiated against him under the Rules
for having extracted minerals from the Government lands
unauthorizedly and that all such proceedings have been
compounded. According to the petitioner, the tenth
respondent being a violator of law, he cannot be granted a
privilege by the State in the form of a quarrying lease.
15. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the
tenth respondent pointed out that no proceedings whatsoever
has been initiated against the tenth respondent at any point of
time alleging violation of any of the terms in Exts.P1 and P2
quarrying leases. Similarly, it was pointed out by the learned
Senior Counsel that the tenth respondent has also not been
convicted for any offence punishable under the Mines and
Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 or the Rules
made thereunder. According to the learned Senior Counsel,
such a person cannot be denied a quarrying lease if he is
otherwise entitled for the same. It was also contended by the
learned Senior Counsel that merely for the reason that the
offences committed by the tenth respondent have been
compounded repeatedly and that penalty was imposed on him
under the Land Conservancy Act, he cannot be denied the
privilege of the quarrying lease. In essence, the submission
made by the learned Senior Counsel is that Ext.P12 quarrying
lease is in order.
16. The learned Government Pleader reiterated the
stand of the State as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the State on 15.01.2020.
17. The short question that emerges from the long
pleadings of the parties and the lengthy arguments advanced
by the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the
respondents, is whether the competent authority under the
Rules was justified in issuing Ext.P12 quarrying lease to the
tenth respondent.
18. As noted, the case of the petitioner is that the
authorities under the Rules are not justified in issuing Ext.P12
quarrying lease to the tenth respondent who has extracted
minerals far in excess of the quantity permitted, trespassing
into unauthorized lands, flouting the various conditions
imposed on him in terms of the earlier leases and violating the
provisions of the Rules. The tenth respondent does not admit
that he has flouted the terms of the earlier quarrying leases
viz, Exts.P1 and P2 nor does he admit that he has violated any
of the provisions of the Rules while extracting minerals on the
strength of Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases. On the other hand,
he asserts in the various counter affidavits filed in the matter
that no proceedings whatsoever have been initiated against
him alleging contravention of the terms of Exts.P1 and P2
quarrying leases or the provisions of the Rules. As such, before
proceeding to consider the question formulated for decision, it
is necessary to consider the correctness of the factual premise
on which the petitioner seeks relief in the matter.
19. In terms of the Rules, minerals are to be
extracted by a quarrying lessee in accordance with the
approved mining plan. The approved mining plan specifies the
quantity of minerals permitted to be extracted and also the
area from which the extraction is to be made. Rule 68 of the
Rules provides that a quarrying lessee is bound to carry out
quarrying operations in accordance with the approved mining
plan. As noted, in the additional counter affidavit filed on
18.10.2019, the third respondent has furnished the particulars
of the extraction of minerals made by the tenth respondent
unauthorizedly during and before the period during which he
was holding Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases. A perusal of the
said counter affidavit together with Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying
leases would reveal that the unauthorized extraction of
minerals made by the tenth respondent referred to in the
affidavit was from the Government land covered by Ext.P2
quarrying lease and from the lands adjoining the Government
land covered by Ext.P1 quarrying lease. The said counter
affidavit would also reveal that in respect of the said
unauthorized extraction of minerals made by the tenth
respondent, a sum of Rs.43,00,549/- has been demanded from
the tenth respondent and he has remitted the same. The tenth
respondent does not dispute the aforesaid facts. The amount
demanded from the tenth respondent in this regard is
presumably under Rule 108(2) of the Rules. Further, Exts.P1
and P2 quarrying leases confer right on the tenth respondent
only to extract mineral from the leasehold mentioned therein.
In other words, extracting minerals beyond the boundaries of
the leasehold would amount to breach of the terms of the
quarrying lease. Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases categorically
provide that the provisions of the Rules will form part of the
leases and the lessee shall be bound by the said Rules as well.
The tenth respondent, in the circumstances, cannot be heard to
contend that he has not contravened the provisions of the
Rules or the terms of the lease in the matter of extracting
minerals on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases.
20. The moot question is as to whether the
contravention of the provisions of the Rules and terms of
Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases by the tenth respondent would
preclude the authorities from granting a fresh quarrying lease
to him under the Rules or does it dis-entitle the tenth
respondent from claiming a fresh quarrying lease from the
Government. The competent authorities under the Rules as
also the tenth respondent assert that the Rules does not
preclude the competent authorities from granting a fresh lease
to a person who has contravened the provisions of the same
and extracted minerals while holding an earlier quarrying
lease. Raising of minerals contravening the provisions of the
Rules is an offence punishable under Rule 108(1) of the Rules.
The stand of the competent authorities is that insofar as the
offences committed under the said provision have been
compounded by collecting the amount in terms of Rule 108(2)
of the Rules from the tenth respondent, there cannot be any
impediment in granting a fresh lease to him. The correctness of
this stand needs to be examined.
21. Rule 50 of the Rules confers discretion on the
competent authority to cancel the lease if the lessee violates
any of the conditions subject to which the lease is granted.
Rule 50 of the Rules reads thus:
50. Cancellation of quarrying lease.--If the Government or
competent authority under these rules has reason to
believe that the lease granted is in contravention of
provisions of any other law or the lessee has violated any
of the conditions subject to which the lease is granted, the
Government or the competent authority may, after giving
the lessee an opportunity of being heard, direct him not to
undertake any quarrying operations in the area of the
lease and may cancel the lease and in such cases the
quarried materials lying on the land from which they are
extracted shall become the absolute property of the
Government. In such an event, all the royalties and rents
paid in advance or part thereof that may stand to the
credit of the lessee shall also be forfeited to Government:
Provided that where the competent authority
is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of
regulation of quarries and mineral development,
preservation of natural environment, control of floods,
prevention of pollution or to avoid danger to public health
or communications or to ensure safety of buildings,
monuments or other structures or for such other purposes,
as the competent authority may deem fit, he may, by an
order terminate the quarrying lease with respect to the
area or any part thereof covered by such lease.
If the lease granted to a person is liable to be cancelled in
terms of the Rules in the event of the lessee committing breach
of the terms of the lease, it can certainly be held that the
scheme of the Rules is that a person who commits breach of
the terms of the lease will not be entitled to a further lease
under the Rules in respect of the same land, for if it is held that
such persons are entitled to further lease either in the form of
renewal or fresh lease in respect of the same land, the Rule
aforesaid would become redundant and meaningless. Further,
the terms of quarrying lease under the Rules are statutorily
prescribed. Form H to the Rules is the statutory prescription
concerning the lease and it is in the said Form that quarrying
leases are being executed. Clause 15 of Form H reads thus:
"15. If the lessee/lessees shall be desirous of taking a
further lease of the said lands for a further term of .....
years he/they shall give three months' previous notice in
writing of such desire to the State
Government/competent authority and if the
lessee/lessees has/have duly observed all the conditions
of this lease, the State Government/competent authority
may agree to renew the lease for such further term and
on such terms and conditions as the State
Government/competent authority may determine which
shall be in accordance with the provisions of these
rules."
The extracted Clause would show that if the lessee is desirous
of taking a further lease of the leasehold for a further period,
he shall give three months' previous notice in writing of such
desire to the competent authority and the competent authority
may agree to renew the lease for such further term, if the
lessee has duly observed all the conditions of the lease. The
said provision makes it clear that if the lessee has committed
breach of any of the conditions of the lease, the competent
authority cannot exercise the discretion conferred on him to
renew the lease. Obviously, the said provision would apply only
to cases where lease has not been terminated for the breach
committed by the lessee. Rule 51 of the Rules provides that
where an applicant for renewal of quarrying lease is convicted
for illegal quarrying, the competent authority may refuse to
renew such quarrying lease. Rule 51 of the Rules reads thus:
51. Refusal for renewal of quarrying lease.--Where an
applicant for renewal of quarrying lease is convicted for illegal
quarrying, and there are no interim orders of any court of law
suspending the operation of the order of such conviction in
appeals pending against such conviction in any court of law, the
Government or the competent authority may, after giving such
applicant an opportunity of being heard and for reasons to be
recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant, refuse to
renew such quarrying lease.
A combined reading of Clause 15 of Form H of the Rules as also
Rules 50 and 51 of the Rules would show that Clause 15 of
Form H and Rule 50 are land specific, whereas, Rule 51 is a
general provision which confers power on the competent
authority to refuse renewal of a quarrying lease to a person
convicted for illegal quarrying. I am taking the said view, as
otherwise, Rule 51 of the Rules would run counter to Clause 15
of Form H of the Rules.
22. Reverting to the facts, Ext.P1 quarrying lease
was in respect of 0.7270 hectares of land in Sy.Nos.158/6,
158/12-2 and 158/5 of Ittiva Village. Ext.P12 quarrying lease is
in respect of 1.0905 hectares of Government and private land
in Sy.Nos.158/3, 158/5, 158/6, 158/7-2, 158/8, 158/10, 158/12-2
and 158/11 of Ittiva Village. In other words, Ext.P12 quarrying
lease is in respect of the entire land covered by Ext.P1
quarrying lease and in respect of a few other lands. As such,
though Ext.P12 is styled as a fresh quarrying lease, the same,
in effect, is a renewal of Ext.P1 quarrying lease. Ext.P1 is a
quarrying lease executed in a statutory form. Clause 14 therein
is the clause corresponding to Clause 15 of Form H of the Rules.
As found above, by extracting minerals over and above the
quantity permitted and by extracting minerals from the lands
other than the lands covered by the leases, the tenth
respondent has committed breach of the terms of the lease.
As such, in the light of Clause 15 of Form H of the Rules, the
competent authority was precluded from granting a fresh lease
in respect of the Government land covered by Ext.P1 to the
tenth respondent. Ext.P12 lease insofar as it relates to the
Government land covered by Ext.P1 quarrying lease is,
therefore, illegal.
23. As noted, Rule 51 of the Rules confers
authority on the competent authority to refuse to renew a
quarrying lease, if the applicant is a person convicted for illegal
quarrying. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior
Counsel for the tenth respondent in this regard is that Rule 51
has no application since Ext.P12 is a fresh quarrying lease and
that the tenth respondent has never been convicted for illegal
quarrying. As held above, the said provision confers power on
the competent authority to refuse renewal of an existing
quarrying lease to a person convicted for illegal quarrying. The
logic behind Rule 51 of the Rules being that a violator of the
provisions of the Rules is not entitled to the privileges under
the Rules, the same shall apply with equal force in the context
of a fresh grant as well. Further, the materials on record
indicate that though several cases have been booked against
the tenth respondent for illegal quarrying, he was not
prosecuted as the Geologist concerned has compounded the
offences committed by him, in exercise of the power conferred
under Rule 111 of the Rules. The statement made by the
Geologist to that effect in the affidavit dated 18.10.2019 reads
thus:
"5. It is submitted that Sri.M.K.Biju was granted
lease dated 16.02.2018 to conduct the quarrying operation in
Ittiva Village, Kottarakkara Taluk. The other two lease areas
are situated in Kummil Village of the same Taluk. The lease
holder had submitted applications to compound the offences
committed by the 8th respondent in respect of the aforesaid
three leases on different dates. The Geologist, Kollam have
compounded the offences considering the request of the
lease holder by imposing the fine amount. The true copy of
the list of compounding of the offences is produced herewith
and marked as Annexure R3(b).
6. It is submitted that the offences have been
compounded by the Geologist on various occasions
exercising the power under Rule 111 of the Kerala Minor
Mineral Concession Rules. On perusal of the relevant
records, it was revealed that the lease holder committed the
offences like extraction of excess quantity and extraction
beyond the lease area. The lease holder is strictly warned by
the Department not to repeat such offences during the
currency on lease. It is respectfully submitted that if the
lease holder again commits similar offences this respondent
will take prompt action against the lease holder as provided
under Section 4A of the MMDR Act."
Now the question that requires consideration is whether Rule
51 covers situations where offences committed under the Act
or Rules have been compounded by the competent authority. In
Sri Kamatchi Theatre, v. District Collector, Madurai, 1999 SCC
online Mad 854, the Madras High Court has held that
compounding an offence would amount to admitting the
commission of the offence. The relevant paragraphs of the
said judgment read thus:
51. In the light of the above, the expression "composition" or
"compounding of offence or irregularity" means accepting the
acquiescence or irregularity committed or the violation of the
statutory provision, and by compounding the offence, the person
who is permitted to compound, admits the irregularity or
violation. It may be for ever so many reasons, or it may be to
avoid embarrassment or the situation, to purchase peace. By
mere compounding, such an individual is not exonerated, nor a
blank shield or protection cover is thrown against him for the
commission or omissions for which compounding is permissible
under law. Therefore, it follows when once the licensee
compounds the offence under Section 15 of the Act, it would
mean that the licensee had committed or is reasonably
suspected of having committed an offence and on his application,
is permitted to compound the offence. In other words, it is a clear
verdict by confession to avoid penal consequences.
52. Section 15 of the Entertainments Tax Act is an enabling
provision which enables the authorities to compound such person
who has committed an offence or reasonably suspected of having
committed an offence against the provisions of the Act or the
Rules made thereunder. By compounding the offence, by
invoking Section 15 of the Act, die licensee or the person
authorised by him admits the commission or omission of those
offences or violations of statutory provisions for which a penalty
or fine or imprisonment is provided for, as the case may be. In
other words, it is an admission of the guilt and on payment of
certain compounding fee, the accused person is to be proceeded,
which would not ipso facto mean that he has been cleared of the
accusations or the offences committed by him.
xxxxxx
55. In all these three cases, as well as in all the cases where
the licensee had been permitted to compound the offence, and
had been permitted to pay the compounding fee, it pre-supposes
mat the individual licensees or the Manager, or the authorised
agent admits the violation of the provision of the Entertainment
Tax Act or the Rules and confess guilty of an offence punishable
under the said Act. Only on mat basis, compounding is permitted
by the authorities constituted under the Entertainment Tax Act.
Compounding presupposes an admission of the misconduct
which is either a technical or a statutory violation which is
punishable under the statutory provision in respect of which
compounding of the offence is permitted.
56. In other words, it is admission of the guilt which has led to
the passing of an order of permission to compound, and there is
nothing further to be tried or to be gone into after the licensee
had been permitted to compound an offence under Section 15 of
the Entertainment Tax Act. It is a verdict by confession and,
therefore, the consequences follows.
This Court has held in Noushad v. Forest Range Officer and
others, 2018(1) KHC 499 that compounding involves
admission of guilt of the accused concerned and in such cases
it has to be treated as a conviction. The said judgment was
rendered in the context of the request made by the petitioner
therein for compounding the offence alleged against him under
Section 52 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. The question
considered was whether confiscation proceedings as provided
for under Section 55 of the said statute would follow in respect
of the vehicle involved in the commission of the offence as a
consequence of the compounding of the offence. The relevant
portion of the judgment reads thus:
4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government
Pleader for Forests, in case of compounding under S.68 of the
Act, it involves the admission of guilt by the accused concerned
and in such case, it has to be treated as a conviction within the
meaning of S.55(1) of the Act.
If the word 'conviction' contained in Rule 51 of the Rules is
understood in the light of the decisions aforesaid, it is evident
that the competent authority under the Rules is clothed with
the discretion to refuse to renew a quarrying lease in favour of
a person who has committed illegal quarrying and compounded
the same by remitting the statutory dues.
24. True, the word 'may' used in Rule 51 of the
Rules indicates that the competent authority is not bound to
exercise the power of refusal conferred under that provision in
all cases of conviction for illegal quarrying and compounding of
the offences booked for illegal quarrying. It is all the more so
since non-compliance of any of the provisions, whether trivial
or serious, would attract the offence punishable under Rule
108(1) of the Rules. It appears that it is on account of the said
reason that a provision is made in the Rules for compounding
of offence committed under the Rules. As rightly conceded by
the State Government in the affidavit filed in the matter on
15.01.2020 that the compounding provision is intended only to
ensure that trivial and unintentional infractions of the Rules do
not result in harassment to the lessee, and the said provision
cannot be used to condone the successive violations of the
statutory provisions involving unauthorised extraction of large
quantity of minerals owned by the State. In other words, the
scheme of the Rules is that except in cases of trivial and
unintentional infractions of the Rules, the persons concerned
are to be prosecuted. If the scheme of the Rules is understood
in that fashion, it can certainly be held that the power
conferred on the competent authority to refuse to renew an
existing quarrying lease or grant a fresh quarrying lease under
Rule 51 of the Rules is to be exercised in a case involving
serious offences. The question is as to whether the offences
committed by the tenth respondent in the case on hand which
have been compounded by the competent authority under the
Rules are cases of serious nature warranting invocation of the
power under Rule 51 of the Rules. In State of NCT of Delhi v.
Sanjay, 2014 KHC 4558, the Apex Court has held that
dishonest removal of minerals which is a property of the State
also would constitute the offence of theft. In other words,
removal of large quantity of minerals belonging to the State
otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Rules
repeatedly would certainly constitute the offence of theft
punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. As
noted, cases have been booked against the tenth respondent
on several occasions for unauthorised extraction of large
quantity of minerals and all those cases have been
compounded by the competent authority by accepting the
statutory dues in respect of the same. Similarly, several cases
under the Land Conservancy Act have been booked against the
tenth respondent for having encroached upon Government land
for extraction of granite building stones on the strength of
short-term permits issued by the revenue officials. Even
according to the State, having regard to the gravity, the
offenses committed by the tenth respondent in this regard
ought not have been compounded by the competent authority.
In other words, in the light of the very serious nature of the
offences committed by the tenth respondent and in the light of
the admission of guilt made by him, it is a case where the
competent authority ought to have exercised the power under
Rule 51 of the Rules to decline to assign a fresh quarrying lease
to the tenth respondent. I am fortified in the said view by the
following observation made by the Apex court in Jayant v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, 2020 SCC Online SC 989 :
"It might be true that by permitting the violators to compound
the offences under the MMDR Act or the rules made thereunder,
the State may get the revenue and the same shall be on the
principle of person who causes the damage shall have to
compensate the damage and shall have to pay the penalty like
the principle of polluters to pay in case of damage to the
environment. However, in view of the large scale damages being
caused to the nature and as observed and held by this Court in
the case of Sanjay (supra), the policy and object of MMDR Act
and Rules are the result of an increasing awareness of the
compelling need to restore the serious ecological imbalance and
to stop the damages being caused to the nature and considering
the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid decision,
reproduced hereinabove, and when the violations like this are
increasing and the serious damage is caused to the nature and
the earth and it also affects the ground water levels etc. and it
causes severe damage as observed by this Court in the case of
Sanjay (supra), reproduced hereinabove, we are of the opinion
that the violators cannot be permitted to go scot-free on
payment of penalty only. There must be some stringent
provisions which may have deterrent effect so that the violators
may think twice before committing such offences and before
causing damage to the earth and the nature".
25. As noted, the main argument of the learned
Senior Counsel for the tenth respondent was that merely for
the reasons that the offences committed by the tenth
respondent have been compounded repeatedly and that
penalty was imposed on him under the Land Conservancy Act,
he cannot be denied the privilege of the quarrying lease. The
said argument was made taking advantage of the fact that
there is no express provision in the Rules conferring power on
the competent authorities under the Rules to refrain from
renewing an existing lease or granting a fresh lease to a person
who had earlier committed illegal quarrying, and the offence
committed by him has been compounded. I have already held
that Rule 51 of the Rules covers such cases also. Even in the
absence of a provision in the nature of Rule 51, according to
me, the competent authority under the Rules has the
necessary power to decline a fresh quarrying lease or renew an
existing quarrying lease if the applicant is a habitual violator of
law. Natural/material resources of the country belongs to the
people and the State is holding the same in trust for the
people. The State is certainly empowered to distribute the
natural resources, but, in the light of Article 39(b) of the
Constitution, the distribution of the same shall be in such a way
as to subserve the common good in best possible manner. It is
well settled that no one has any legal or vested right to claim
the grant or renewal of a mining lease [See Monnet Ispat and
Energy Limited v. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 1]. As
such, while distributing natural resources, the State and its
officials are bound to act in consonance with the principles of
equality and public trust and ensure that no action is taken
which may be detrimental to public interest. The power to
grant a fresh quarrying lease and renew an existing quarrying
lease conferred on the authority is certainly a discretionary
power. Discretion which is an effective tool in administration
provides an option to the authority concerned to adopt one or
the other alternative. A better, proper and legal exercise of
discretion is one where the authority examines the fact, is
aware of law and then decides objectively and rationally what
serves the interest better. When a statue provides either
guidance or rules or regulations for exercise of discretion, then
the action should be in accordance with it. But, if statute is
silent, it cannot be said that the authority can act whimsically
or arbitrarily. In such cases, the authorities have a duty to act
prudently after taking necessary care to ensure compliance of
the constitutional obligation that the grant or renewal of the
quarrying lease, as the case may be, would serve the common
good in best possible manner [See Bangalore Medical Trust
v. B.S Muddappa, (1991) 4 SCC 54]. The duty of care
expected from the officials in the matter of granting/renewing
quarrying leases is of a very high degree when compared to
the duty of care expected from functionaries under other
legislations. The duty of care is the legal responsibility of a
person to avoid any behavior or omissions that could
reasonably be foreseen to cause harm to others. The duty of
care to be exercised by a statutory authority would depend
upon various factors such as relevant statutes, rules,
regulations, general standard of care etc. If specific duties are
written into law, there may not be any difficulty for the
competent authority to discharge its functions. However, if
specific duties are not written into law, the authorities must act
with the same degree of care that an ordinary person of
prudence would act in the same situation. What would an
ordinary person of prudence entrusted with the responsibility to
subserve the common good in best possible manner do, if he is
asked to decide as to whether a fresh quarrying lease is to be
granted to a person who has extracted large quantity of
minerals unauthorisedly, whenever a permission was granted,
that too, flouting the conditions of the grant and provisions of
the Rules? I have no doubt in my mind that the decision of an
ordinary prudent man in a case of this nature would always be
against the tenth respondent. If one examines the scope of the
discretion vested in the competent authority under the Rules to
grant or refuse the quarrying permit in the light of the aforesaid
propositions, it can be seen that even in the absence of any
statutory power, the competent authority under the Rules are
bound to decline the request for grant of fresh quarrying lease
in a case of the instant nature, to subserve the common good
in best possible manner mandated by the Constitution.
26. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and
Ext.P12 quarrying lease is quashed.
Before parting with this judgment, it is necessary to
mention that though the State Government has undertaken
before this court in the affidavit filed in this matter on
15.1.2020 that appropriate steps would be taken to ensure that
the power to compound the offences punishable under the
Rules is not exercised by the competent authorities
indiscriminately without taking into account the magnitude of
the offences committed, nothing seems to have been done
towards that direction for the last one year. Registry is,
therefore, directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the
Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Industries,
Government of Kerala to take appropriate measures, having
regard to the propositions laid down in this judgment to ensure
that criminal law is set in motion against the violators and the
power to compound the offences punishable under the Rules is
not abused.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE
PV
WP(C).No.27949 OF 2018(P)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE DATED
24.03.2006 ISSUED TO 0.7270 HECTRES OF
PROPERTY SITUATED IN SURVEY NO.158 OF
ITTIVA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE DATED
24.03.2006 ISSUED TO 0.85 HECTRES OF
PROPERTY SITUATED IN SURVEY NO.161 OF
ITTIVA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO
OPERATE-RENEWAL DATED 06.04.2015.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES
OF THE PETITIONER DUE TO THE EXPOSURE TO
QUARRY DATED 10.05.2017.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION ISSUED BY
DR.K.JAYARAM DATED 14.03.2017.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
10.05.2017.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKARA DATED
16.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY
THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND
GEOLOGIST, KOLLAM DATED 21.11.2017.
EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY
GEOLOGIST DATED 06.02.2018.
EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY
SMT.SREELATHA SOMAN AND JIJO VIJAYAN DATED
'NIL'.
EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE
EXECUTED UNDER RULE 43 OF KMMC RULES DATED
17.02.2018.
WP(C).No.27949 OF 2018(P)
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.2.2018
OF THE COMMISSIONER LAND REVENUE TO THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 THE TRUE COPY OF HTE INFORMATION FROM THE
STATE INFORMATION OFFICER AND DISTRICT
GEOLOGIST DATED 13.12.2017
EXHIBIT P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY
STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER -
COLLECTORATE KOLLAM DATED 29-11-2018
EXHIBIT P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY
STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER DATED 28-
11-2018
EXHIBIT P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FILE
NO.PCB/HO/KLM/ICE/1/2015
EXHIBIT P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SPM MEASUREMENTS FOR
SUMMER DAYS AVERAGE 7 TO 500 METERS RANGE
FROM KARTHIKA METAL CRUSHER UNIT
EXHIBIT P19 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO HIS
EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR OF KERALA STATE
EXHIBIT P20 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE TO THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM BY THE RESIDENTS
OF VACHEEKONAM AND KALYANIMUKKU
EXHIBIT P21 THE TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT MADE BY THE
RESIDENTS TO THE STATE POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
EXHIBIT P22 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF PROTEST TO
THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KOLLAM
EXHIBIT P23 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY
THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
COLLECTORATE KOLLAM
EXHIBIT P24 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY
THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND
ADMINISTRATOR SEIAA DATED 11-08-2017
EXHIBIT P25 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE STATE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY
WP(C).No.27949 OF 2018(P)
KERALA
EXHIBIT P26 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
RESIDENTS TO THE SEIAA DATED 25-08-2017
EXHIBIT P27 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF PROTEST TO
SEIAA FROM THE RESIDENTS AGAINST ISSUE OF
EC TO KARTHIKA METAL CRUSHER AND QUARRY
EXHIBIT P28 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM IVA/IA KERALA
STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD APPLICATION
FOR CONSENT PART II GENERAL INFORMATION 6
PRESCRIBING DISTANCE TO BE MAINTAINED FOR A
CRUSHER UNIT FROM DRINKING WATER SUPPLY AND
RESIDENTIAL HOUSES.
ANNEXURE A VIOLATIONS AND COMPOUNDING RECORDS OBTAINED
THROUGH RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005 ON
21.11.2017
ANNEXURE B VIOLATIONS AND COMPOUNDING RECORDS OBTAINED
THROUGH RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005 ON
06.02.2018
ANNEXURE C INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM STATE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER COLLECTORATE KOLLAM
ANNEXURE D INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM VILAGE OFFICER
ITTIVA
ANNEXURE E INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM VILLAGE OFFICER
ITTIVA
ANNEXURE F INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM TALUK OFFICE
KOTTARAKARA
ANNEXURE G INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM TALUK OFFICE
KOTTARAKARA
ANNEXURE H INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM TALUK OFFICE
KOTTARAKARA
ANNEXURE I INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM DISTRICT
GEOLOGIST KOLLAM
ANNEXURE J INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM STATE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER COLLECTORATE KOLLAM
WP(C).No.27949 OF 2018(P)
ANNEXURE K INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM STATE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER COLLECTORATE KOLLAM
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R6(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN
O.S.NO.266/2017 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF
COURT, KOTTARAKKARA.
EXHIBIT R6(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.1621/2017 IN
O.S.NO.266/2017 BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT,
KOTTARAKKARA.
EXHIBIT R6(C) A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.713/2018 IN CMA
NO.43/2017 BEFORE THE SUB COURT,
KOTTARAKKARA.
EXHIBIT R6(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND
FOREST DATED 30.11.2017
NO.637/SEIAA/KC/4908/2014.
EXHIBIT R6(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT
VARIATION CONSENT NO.PCB/KO/CTO/R3/439/2017
DATED 27.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
EXHIBIT R6(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVES LICENSES
NO.E/SC/KC/22/296(E11738) DATED 3.11.2017
ISSUED BY THE EXPLOSIVES DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT R6(G) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDING COMMITTEE TO THE
ITTIVA GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT R6(H) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT
NO.NLM/2018/09/223/1 DATED 18.9.2018 ISSUED
BY JESCO (ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITY APPROVED
BY KSPCB)
EXHIBIT R6(I) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT
NO.AQM/2018/09/223/1 DATED 20.9.2018 ISSUD
BY JESSO (ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITY APPROVED
BY KSPCB).
EXHIBIT R6(J) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED MINING PLAN
DATED 7.7.2017 (RELEVANT FRONT PAGE AND
TABLE 9.1) ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R6(K) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.B5-9655/17
WP(C).No.27949 OF 2018(P)
DATED 12.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE CHARGE
OFFICER ITTIVA GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT R6(L) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
REV.P2/422/2018-REV DATED 6/10/2018 ISSUED
BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM
EXHIBIT R6(M) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO. B5-23054/18
DATED 28-12-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE
TAHASILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA TO THE FOURTH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R6(N) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
REV.P2/93/2019-REV DATED 13/03/2019 ISSUED
BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFFICER TO
THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH NO. REV.
P2/392/20 REV DATED 27-02-2019
EXHIBIT-R6(O) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29/10/2017
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE KADAKKAL POLICE
STATION ALONG WITH RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
KADAKKAL POLICE STATION
EXHIBIT-R6(P) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO. REV-
92(393/2017) DATED 27/02/2019
EXHIBIT-R6(Q) TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE DATED
14/12/2017 IN INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY
EXHIBIT-R6(R) TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE DATED
15/12/2017 IN THE INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY
EXHIBIT-R6(S) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
MINUTES OF THE 74TH MEETING OF THE STATE
ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT KERALA (PAGE
NOS. 1, 36, 37 AND 38)
EXHIBIT-R6(t) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.
GO(RT) NO.1324/12/ID.
EXHIBIT-R6(u) TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 29TH
OCTOBER 2019 SUBMITTED BY THE WRIT
PETITIONER COUNSEL BEFORE THE SUB COURT
KOTTARAKKARA IN CMA.NO.43/2017.
EXHIBIT R2(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION (WITHOUT
ENCLOSURES) FOR GRANT OF QUARRYING LEASE IN
FORM - B DATED 19/06/2017.
EXHIBIT R2(b): A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
WP(C).No.27949 OF 2018(P)
GEOLOGIST, KOLLAM TO THE DIRECTOR OF MINING
AND GEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED
29/06/2017.
EXHIBIT R2(c): THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DATED
16/02/2018.
EXHIBIT R6 (V) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
DIRECTOR, MINING AND GEORLOGY DATED
16.02.2018
EXHIBIT R6 (W) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 528653/11
DATED 14.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE STATE
INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA
EXHIBIT R6 (X) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B1-12085/07
DATED 26.112007 ISSUED BY THE STATE
INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA.
EXHIBIT R6 (Y) A TRUE COPY OF THE ENTIRE FILE RELATING TO
THE ISSUE OF EXT.P12 MINING LEASE OBTAINED
BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT
EXHIBIT R1 A THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER SRO
NO.869/1995 DATED 22.06.1995
EXHIBIT R3 (A) i) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT
ii)COPY OF THE LIST OF QUARRYING LEASES
CURRENTLY OWNED BY SRI.M.K.BIJU, KARTHIKA
EXT.R3 (B) COPY OF THE LIST OF COMPOUNDING OF THE
OFFENCES
