Vipin Das vs The Director, Mining And Geology
2022 Latest Caselaw 10855 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 10855 Ker
Judgement Date : 3 November, 2022

Kerala High Court

Vipin Das vs The Director, Mining And Geology on 3 November, 2022

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944
                     WP(C) NO. 27679 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          VIPIN DAS
          AGED 38 YEARS
          S/O MUKUNDAN,
          KOMATHU HOUSE,
          NANTHIKKARA,
          THRISSUR.
          BY ADV SUNIL JACOB JOSE


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DIRECTOR, MINING AND GEOLOGY
          (MINING & GEOLOGY),
          DIRECTORATE OF MINING & GEOLOGY,
          KESAVADASAPURAM,
          PATTOM PALACE P.O,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
    2     SENIOR GEOLOGIST,
          DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
          DISTRICT OFFICE,
          MINI CIVIL STATION,
          CHEMBUKKAVU,
          THRISSUR-20.
          BY ADVS.
          ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
          GOVERNMENT PLEADER(GP-1)

          SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.27679 OF 2022
                                  2




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2022

The petitioner was granted Ext.P1 order under Rule

104 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, permitting him

to remove 7000 Cubic metres of ordinary clay that had been

extracted and stored in the property.

2. The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent-Senior

Geologist has to pass consequential orders. It is stated that

though the petitioner has been issued Mineral Transit Passes

earlier two times, he could not transport any clay at all. This is

due to the fact that transportation of clay is prohibited on

Saturdays and Sundays and on the days notified by the Disaster

Management Authority. The clay cannot be removed on rainy

days also.

3. The petitioner states that the non-issuance of renewed

Mineral Transit Passes by the 2nd respondent-Senior Geologist is WP(C) NO.27679 OF 2022

causing untold hardship to the petitioner. Unless the 2 nd

respondent-Senior Geologist issues sufficient quantity of Mineral

Transit Passes permitting the petitioner to remove the clay stored

in the property, within a duration of sixty days, the petitioner will

not be able to transport the entire quantity of 7000 Cubic metres of

clay. Therefore, the 2nd respondent-Senior Geologist is

compellable to issue Mineral Transit Passes giving the petitioner a

period of sixty days for transportation.

4. Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted

the writ petition. Government Pleader submitted that such a long

duration cannot be granted for transportation of clay or ordinary

earth. Such long duration will be misused for illegal excavation

and transportation of minerals. The maximum period that can be

granted is two weeks, stated the Government Pleader. Though

the petitioner was issued with Mineral Transit Passes earlier, the

petitioner has not cared to remove any amount of clay from the

property. In the circumstances, the bona fide of the petitioner is WP(C) NO.27679 OF 2022

doubtful, contended the Government Pleader.

5. The counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand,

submitted that the petitioner has to deploy sufficient men,

machinery and materials for transportation of the clay. If due to

reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, the entire quantity

could not be removed within the permissible period, the petitioner

will have to make fresh application again for issuance of Mineral

Transit Passes which will not be issued atleast within a period of

one week. During all these periods, the machinery like Excavator

and Hitachi Lorries will have to be maintained by the petitioner

paying huge hire charges, which would result in gross financial

loss to the petitioner. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the

petitioner should be granted sixty days to transform the clay and

sufficient number of Mineral Transit Passes, contended the

petitioner.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. WP(C) NO.27679 OF 2022

7. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has been

permitted to remove 7000 Cubic metres of clay from the property

possessed by the petitioner. The petitioner has been issued with

Mineral Transit Passes. According to the petitioner, the clay could

not be removed utilising those Mineral Transit Passes due to

reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.

8. The specific case of the petitioner is that unless

sufficient time is granted, once the period of Mineral Transit

Passes expire, the petitioner will have to surrender the remaining

Mineral Transit Passes and apply for issuance of fresh passes.

The processing of such renewal application would take a

considerable amount of time and the petitioner will have to pay the

rentals/ hire charges of machinery like Excavator, Hitachi lorry, etc.

which will be financially unviable.

9. Taking into consideration the entire facts and

circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the

fact that the petitioner has been permitted to remove 7000 Cubic WP(C) NO.27679 OF 2022

metres of clay, this Court is inclined to grant appropriate direction

to the 2nd respondent-Senior Geologist.

10. The 2nd respondent-Senior Geologist is directed to

consider the application of the petitioner for issuance of Mineral

Transit Passes and issue sufficient number of passes so as to

remove the entire quantity of 7000 Cubic metres of clay, granting a

duration of twenty days for removal of clay. It is made clear that if

the petitioner for any reason is unable to remove the entire

quantity of clay during this period, he may make an application for

reissuance of Mineral Transit Passes one week in advance. If the

petitioner makes such renewal application, the 2nd respondent-

Senior Geologist will consider the same expeditiously.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

sss WP(C) NO.27679 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27679/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 PHOTOCOPY OF GO(RT)NO.33/2022/ID DATED 10/01/2020 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 24/1/2022 OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/3/2022 IN WP(C)NO.4070/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit P4 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.6/22-

23/2017/OC/C1/TDO/2021 DATED 4/4/2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHALAN AND THE PAY IN SLIP DATED 11/4/2022 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF THE ROYALTY AMOUNT AND THE TDS.

Exhibit P6 TYPED COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DATED 13/4/2022 SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.22/22-

23/2017/OC/C2/TDO/2021DATED 13/4/2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P8 TYPED COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/4/2022 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.51/22-

23/2017/OC/C2/TDO/2021 DATED 13/5/2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 17/5/2022 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/06/2022 OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P12 PHOTOCOPY OF PERMIT NO.18 OF BOOK NO.1 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P13 PHOTOCOPY OF PERMIT NO.92 OF BOOK NO.2 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P14 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.166/DOTHR-