Roby V.J vs The District Collector
2022 Latest Caselaw 3329 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
     TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 29498 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          ROBY V.J.
          AGED 49 YEARS
          S/O JOSEPH, VETTATH HOUSE, KUMILY P.O.
          IDUKKI DISTICT-685 531.

          BY ADVS.
          PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
          SAJITHA GEORGE


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
          IDUKKI, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA P.O.PAINAVU, IDUKKI -685 603.

    2     THE TAHSILDAR,
          PEERMADE TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION,
          PEERMADE P.O., IDUKKI-685 532

          SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN-SPL.GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 29498 OF 2021

                                        2


                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2022

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:

"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction directing the respondent to issue NOC to the petitioner with respect to the applied area forthwith;

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction directing the respondent to finalize Ext.P1 without referring to the new Guidelines i.e. G.O.(MS) No.28/2021/RD dated 28.01.2021 issued by the Government, regarding issue of NOC with respect to puramboke land for quarrying permit"

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Pleader.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner had made an application for NOC for the purpose of

obtaining a quarrying permit in Government land on 01.01.2018. It is

submitted that the application was sent for enquiry and report and

Ext.P2 report was generated on 01.02.2018. When no orders were

passed on the request for NOC, the petitioner approached this Court

and by Ext.P3 judgment, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to

complete the measurement of the property by availing services of the WP(C) NO. 29498 OF 2021

Taluk Surveyor and to submit a report before the 1st respondent-District

Collector. The 1st respondent was directed to process the application

forthwith.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even pursuant

to Ext.P3 judgment, nothing further was done in the matter. It is

submitted that Ext.P4 report was generated by the Taluk Surveyor,

Peerumedu along with a sketch and Ext.P5 report was submitted by the

2nd respondent. It is submitted that though Ext.P6 representation dated

08.06.2020 was submitted by the petitioner, NOC was not granted.

Ext.P7 letter issued by the District Geologist dated 11.06.2020 is also

relied on. It is submitted that the respondents have inordinately delayed

the finalization of the request made by the petitioner for NOC for

unjustifiable reason in spite of the direction issued in Ext.P3 judgment.

5. It is further stated that the respondents are refusing to pass the

order referring to a Government Order issued on 28.01.2021 laying

down guidelines for issuing NOC with regard to quarrying in

Government puramboke. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the said Government Order can have no application in the instant WP(C) NO. 29498 OF 2021

case since the petitioner's application was, admittedly, dated 01.01.2018

and this Court had directed the consideration of the said application by

Ext.P3 judgment in March, 2018. It is submitted that several other

applications for NOC had been favourably considered and NOCs have

been issued by the respondents as is evident from Exts.P8 to P10.

6. A statement has been placed on record by the 1st respondent. It is

contended that the petitioner's application for NOC was received on

01.01.2018 and had been sent for appropriate reports. It is submitted

that after Ext.P3 judgment, the report of the survey was received only

on 23.07.2018 and that all works in the office of the 1 st respondent were

brought to a stand still due to the floods of 2018 and the entire office

was dealing with the said unprecedented flood situations. It is

submitted that the petitioner also did not make any enquiry about the

progress of his application till 07.06.2020. It is submitted that the

petitioner thereafter submitted a representation on 08.06.2020 and the

said application was sent for further report. It is submitted that in the

meanwhile, the Geologist had informed by letter dated 28.09.2020 that

new guidelines are being prepared in the Revenue Department WP(C) NO. 29498 OF 2021

regarding the issuance of NOC for quarrying in Government land and

that the application had been kept pending, awaiting the issuance of

such directions. It is submitted that on 28.01.2021, the Government

issued G.O.(MS).No.28/2021/RD issuing guidelines for grant of NOC

for quarrying operations in Government puramboke lands which

directed that quarrying lease should be issued only through bidding

process as per the norms and conditions. It is submitted that this is the

reason why the petitioner's application could not be considered.

7. A reply affidavit has also been placed on record by the petitioner.

It is contended that in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner's

application was dated 01.01.2018 and since this Court had specifically

directed the consideration of the application by Ext.P3 judgment, the

contention that the Government Order dated 28.01.2021 has any role to

play in the matter is completely misconceived. It is contended that what

was submitted on 08.06.2020 was only a representation as a reminder

to the application and not a fresh application which could have been

considered in accordance with the proposed guidelines. It is submitted

that in view of the fact that the application had been pending and in WP(C) NO. 29498 OF 2021

view of Ext.P3 judgment of this Court directing the consideration of the

same, the respondents cannot rely on any later change in policy in the

matter of consideration of the same.

8. The decisions of a Division Bench of this Court in Kallada

Hotels and Resorts v. State of Kerala [2012 (2) KLT 167] and of a

learned Single Judge in Hotel Hills Park v. State of Kerala [2014 (2)

KLT 15] were relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner to

contend that the respondents who have delayed consideration of an

application cannot later rely on any change in the procedure for

consideration to contend that the application is not liable to be

considered in accordance with the procedure in force when the

application was submitted.

9. The learned Government Pleader submits that by the time the

representation was submitted by the petitioner on 08.06.2020, the

Government letter dated 18.01.2020 had already been issued.

10. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Government letter dated 18.01.2020 refers only to fresh applications

submitted after that date and since the petitioner's application was WP(C) NO. 29498 OF 2021

admittedly filed on 01.01.2018, the said letter would not have any

application in the light of the earlier procedure.

11. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I

notice that the application for NOC was, admittedly, submitted on

01.01.2018. By Ext.P3 judgment, this Court had specifically directed

the consideration of the same after obtaining reports from the Tahsildar

and the Taluk Surveyor. The reports were, admittedly, before the

respondents in July, 2018. In view of Ext.P3 judgment, there was no

justifiable reason for the respondents to have delayed the consideration

of the application inordinately. Even if the contention raised by the

respondents that the delay occurred due to the floods in 2018 is

accepted, in view of Ext.P3 judgment, the 1st respondent was duty

bound to take up the application, at least, as soon as the reminder made

by the petitioner was submitted. Even as on that date, that is, on

08.06.2020, there was no order revising the procedure.

12. 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, WP(C) NO. 29498 OF 2021

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.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE NP WP(C) NO. 29498 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29498/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT SHOWING A ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATION BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 1.1.2018

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF REPORT FORWARDED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER ON 1.2.2018

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20.3.2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO 7132/2018

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR BEARING NO LRMN 424/218 AND THE SKETCH

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.7.2018

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 8.6.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 11.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF REGISTER SHOWING THE NAME OF APPLICANTS AND NOC TO V.T.SUNNY

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF OF NOC ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO JACOB P. PAUL AND REGISTER

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF NOC ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO SHANTI RAJU.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL