Kerala High Court
Suresh Babu. S vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2025
W.P.(C) No.19129 of 2025
- 1 -
2025:KER:54240
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 19129 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SURESH BABU. S,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O SADASIVAN,
NOW RESIDING AT BUILDING NUMBER 10/110 A,
VADANAKURISSI P.O, SHORNUR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679121
BY ADV SRI.BINU PAUL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
INDUSTRIES (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001
2 DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY KESAVADASAPURAM,
PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
3 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
DISTRICT OFFICE,
TOWN BUS STAND COMPLEX,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678014
W.P.(C) No.19129 of 2025
- 2 -
2025:KER:54240
4 NILA SANDROCK GRANITES PVT. LTD,
X/110 A,. VADANAMKURUSSI, P.O., SHORNUR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 679121
BY ADV.
SRI.SHINE MATHEWS(VADAKKEKARA)
SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.19129 of 2025
- 3 -
2025:KER:54240
JUDGMENT
Petitioner applied for a quarrying license on 10.01.2018. He
produced all statutory permits and licenses including NOCs.
However, vide Ext.P6, his application for a quarrying lease
was refused for the reason that he was previously the Managing
Director in the 4th respondent Company, which failed to produce
a mining closure plan to the concerned department in terms of
Rule 59 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules (for
short, 'the KMMC Rules').
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Senior
Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, and also,
learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
3. This Court notice that the present petitioner was the
Managing Director of the 4th respondent, but he retired vide
Ext.P1 on 13.01.2025. His retirement was accepted by the
Company and a resolution in this regard has already been
passed. Now, the respondents 1 to 3 are harping on Rule 51(2).
- 4 -
2025:KER:54240
Rule 51(2) applies in a case, where any amount is due to the
Government from any person/firm/Company on account of mining
of minor minerals. Again Rule 51(2) interdicts grant of a
further mining lease for such person/firm/Company or
association only; and not to a third person. In the instant
case, there is no dues, whatsoever, from the petitioner to the
Government. Not only that, if at all any amount is found to be
due in future, the same can only be against the 4 th respondent
Company, since the Company is a separate juristic person. The
retired Managing Director cannot be held liable for that dues.
This Court also notice that it is not the 4 th respondent
Company, but the petitioner who had sought for a fresh mining
lease, that too, in respect of a different property
altogether, as could be seen from the difference in the survey
numbers.
4. This Court is therefore of the opinion that Ext.P6 cannot
be sustained. Importantly, there is no provision in Rule 51
for not granting a fresh mining lease on account of a default,
or for that matter, a violation on the part of the project
- 5 -
2025:KER:54240
proponent in respect of his earlier project, a serious lacuna
in the Rules of the State Government.
5. In the light of the above discussion, this Writ Petition
is allowed. Ext.P6 will stand quashed. There will be a
direction to the 2nd respondent Director to issue mining lease
to the petitioner, uninfluenced by the so called default on
the part of the 4th respondent Company in not filing the mining
closure plan in terms of Rule 59 of the KMMC Rules, provided
the petitioner satisfies all other parameters as required by
law for the issuance of mining lease. The above directions
shall be complied within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner will produce
a copy of this judgment before the 2 nd respondent, for
compliance.
This Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE
ww
- 6 -
2025:KER:54240
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19129/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
13.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO
SANDROCK GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED
13.01.2025 PASSED BY SANDROCK GRANITES
PRIVATE LIMITED.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER OF
INTENT DATED 14.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
13.03.2024.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 28.04.2025.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
17.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
GEOLOGIST; PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 AND 3 DATED 19.05.2025.
