Kerala High Court
Kunhalimarakkar vs The Senior Geologist on 9 September, 2021
WP(C) No.33760/2019 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
Thursday, the 9th day of September 2021 / 18th Bhadra, 1943
WP(C) NO. 33760 OF 2019 (T)
PETITIONER:
KUNHALIMARAKKAR, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED HAJI, KULIRMA HOUSE,
MYSORE MALA P.O.KUMARANALLUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT
OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 020.
2. THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE TALUK, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN-673 020.
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to direct the first respondent to renew the dealers licence of the
petitioner for storing, selling and transporting M sand, as applied by
him, forthwith, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition (Civil).
This petition again coming on for orders upon perusing the petition
and the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and this Couer's order dated
16.3.2020 and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.BABU S. NAIR & S.K.SAJU,
Advocates for the petitioner and of SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER for R1 & R2,
the court passed the following:
WP(C) No.33760/2019 2/6
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
---------------------
W.P.(C) No.33760 of 2019
---------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of September, 2021
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader quite in extenso.
2. Read interim order dated 19.12.2019.
3. A statement has been placed on record by the learned
Government Pleader on 02.03.2020.
4. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and
having considered contentions advanced, I notice that the
petitioner had been carrying out the business of manufacturing
M sand and granite rocks in the premises since 2015. The
learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
finding of the Full Bench of this Court in Mathew K.Jacob and
Another v. District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority
(2018 (5) KHC 487 (FB)). It is submitted that since admittedly
the petitioner is not carrying out any quarrying operations in the
property in question, the findings of the Full Bench in paragraph
12 and 13 of the said judgment would apply to the facts of the
WP(C) No.33760/2019 3/6
W.P.(C) No.33760/2019
instant case and that the petitioner would therefore be entitled
to conduct a commercial operation including the operation of an
artificial sand manufacturing unit in the property. It is contended
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised in
the writ petition stands covered by a judgment of this Court in
W.P.(C) No.18360/2019 wherein the decision of the Full Bench in
Mathew K. Jacob (supra) as well as of a Division Bench in One
Life (Reg No.S.246/1988) and another vs. State of Kerala and
others (2019 KHC 221) have been considered and it has been
held that the contention of the Geologist that the petitioner was
using the land for a commercial purpose different from the
purpose for which exemption was originally granted for the
property in question cannot be a ground for rejection of the
application for dealers' licence.
5. The learned Government Pleader submits, on
instructions, that the question whether the petitioner can be
permitted to operate the M sand unit or a metal crusher in the
land which has been exempted from the provisions of the Kerala
Land Reforms Act as plantation is a question which is still
WP(C) No.33760/2019 4/6
W.P.(C) No.33760/2019
pending consideration before this Court since the common
judgment rendered on 12.04.2019 in W.P.(C) No.17847/2018
and connected cases is subjected to an order of stay by a
Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.2299/2019. It is
submitted that several other writ petitions are also pending and
the question whether paragraph 13 of the Full Bench judgment
governs the issue is being considered by this Court.
6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and
having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the
fact that the petitioner had admittedly been conducting the M
sand unit in the property on the basis of permissions and
licenses granted from 2015 onwards and in the light of the
findings in paragraph 13 of the Full bench judgment, I am of the
opinion that the interim relief sought for by the petitioner is
liable to be granted.
7. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader
that a possession certificate had already been granted to the
petitioner by the Village Officer. However a letter had been
issued by the Village Officer supporting the contentions in
WP(C) No.33760/2019 5/6
W.P.(C) No.33760/2019
Ext.P3.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ
petition is admitted. The matter is posted along with the
connected cases for consideration and disposal after filing of
the further affidavits, if required, by the respondents. In the
meanwhile, there will be a further direction to the 1 st respondent
to consider the application preferred by the petitioner for
licence untrammelled by anything stated in Ext.P3 or in the
letter of the Village Officer. If the petitioner is otherwise eligible
for licence, the same shall be granted to him without reference
to the objection that the land is being used for purposes other
than for plantation for which exemption was initially granted.
Appropriate decision shall be taken in the application within
three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The
grant of licence shall be purely provisional and subject to
further orders in the writ petition.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
bng
09-09-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
WP(C) No.33760/2019 6/6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33760/2019
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
DATED 6.11.2019
