Kerala High Court
M.K.Narayanankutty vs State Of Kerala on 4 June, 1994
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/21ST POUSHA, 1937
WP(C).NO. 29959 OF 2011 (T)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
------------
M.K.NARAYANANKUTTY,AGED 49 YEARS,
S/O.LATE KRISHNAN NAIR, LAKSHMI NIVAS,
DWARAI SWAMI IYER ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SRI.DIPU JAMES
SRI.K.P.UNNIKRISHNAN (ELOOR)
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695001.
2. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY,INDUSTRIES
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. THE DIRECTOR,MINING AND GEOLOGY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
4. THE GEOLOGIST,DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND
GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM-691001.
5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,CIVIL STATION,
KOLLAM-691001.
6. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(R.R.),
KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682019.
R4 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. V.K. RAFEEK
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).NO. 29959 OF 2011 (T)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
---------------------
EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.6.1994.
EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 20.10.1994.
EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.10.1994.
EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14.11.2002.
EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.11.2002.
EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.01.2006.
EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 08.11.2006.
EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF ATTACHMENT DATED NIL
EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 17.03.2007.
EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G.O.(RT) NO. 862/07/ID
DATED 03.07.2007.
EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.04.2009.
EXT.P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO. 821/2011/ID DATED
01.07.2011
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
---------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
DST
K. HARILAL, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P. (C) No.29959 of 2011
- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was granted with Ext.P1 quarry permit, to quarry granite stones over an area of 1.4160 hectre of land comprised in Survey No.185/1- 62/1 and 185/1-63A1 of Elandau Village, Kottarakkara Taluk of Kollam District, for a period of 10 years 1994 under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The lease was to quarry granite dimension stones. Pursuant to Ext.P1, the petitioner entered into a lease agreement with the 1st respondent, through the 4th respondent on 14.09.1994, after W.P.(C) No. 29959 of 2011 -: 2 :- remitting the security deposit and other charges. In spite of obtaining a permit, as seen from Ext.P1 the petitioner could not commence the quarrying operation in that property, on account of the objection on the part of the neighbouring and local public.
2. According to the petitioner, he has forwarded a complaint to the 4th respondent, seeking cancellation of the lease agreement. But, no action was taken on that complaint. Thereafter, to the surprise and dismay of the petitioner, he was served with Exts.P4 and P5. By Ext.P4, the petitioner was directed to remit an amount of Rs.4,91,706/- towards the dead rent dues of the petitioner. Aggrieved by Exts.P4 and P5, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.1549 of 2007 and this Court set aside Ext.P10 order passed in appeal, by the 2nd W.P.(C) No. 29959 of 2011 -: 3 :- respondent and directed the 2nd respondent, to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner afresh and to pass orders thereunder.
3. Thereafter, the appeal was heard and the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P12, holding that the petitioner is liable to pay dead rent to the tune of Rs.6,97,026/-, even though, he was failed to operate the quarry. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though, the petitioner has not operated quarry pursuant to the lease agreement, the petitioner is made liable to pay Rs. 6,98,301/- with interest, as dead rent. The legality and propriety of Ext.P12 order are under challenge in this writ petition.
4. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit, denying the allegations in the writ petition and contended that even though, the petitioner has not operated the quarry, he is W.P.(C) No. 29959 of 2011 -: 4 :- liable to pay dead rent and the proceedings were initiated to release dead rent from the petitioner in accordance with law. According to the respondents, as per agreement executed between the petitioner and respondents, the petitioner is liable to pay the dead rent even though, he has not operated the quarry. It is also submitted that in obedience to the judgment of this Court, in W.P.(C) No.1549 of 2007, the appeal was heard in accordance with provisions of law and Ext.P12 was passed by the appellate authority under the Rules. The quarrying lease was granted after due enquiry and made sure that the quarrying will not endanger the adjoining residents or property and there was no substantive reasoning for not operating the quarry, as stated in the objection filed by the petitioner. The dead rent is minimum guaranteed amount payable to the State W.P.(C) No. 29959 of 2011 -: 5 :- Government, by virtue of licence granted to the petitioner and no reduction is permissible, as per Rules. The petitioner was not keen in operating the quarry. He kept the land and mineral wealth idle. But by virtue of this action of taking quarrying lease and keeping it idle he prevented others also in exploiting the granite dimension stones. The demand for a particular type of granite is seasonal and during 1990-95, the type of rock in the lease areas was having sufficient demand. If the quarry was operated during that period, Government would have received sufficient royalty and considerable foreign exchange, by exporting the stones and all the chances were prevented by the inaction on the part of the petitioner, after obtaining licence and holding that right. In such circumstances, the petitioner is liable to compensate the loss suffered W.P.(C) No. 29959 of 2011 -: 6 :- by the Government, by paying the dead rent.
5. In view of the rival pleas, the short point that arises for consideration is, whether interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with Ext.P12 order, passed in appeal is warranted. Apparently, it is seen that the said order was passed after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard, to the petitioner also, pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1549 of 2007. The reasonings whereby, dead rent was imposed on the petitioner are sound and reasonable. He had operated the quarry, after obtaining permit, the Government would have obtained huge amount, as royalty. So also, by keeping the lease hold right idle, he prevented the others from enjoying the right given to him. The Government has lost considerable foreign exchange, which would have W.P.(C) No. 29959 of 2011 -: 7 :- been obtained, by exporting the granite stones to foreign countries. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is liable to compensate the Government. Thus, the imposition of dead rent for not operating quarry, is just and proper. Therefore, I do not find any reason or circumstance to interfere with Ext.P5 order.
This Writ Petition is devoid of merits and dismissed accordingly Sd/-
K. HARILAL, JUDGE DST //True copy// P.A. To Judge