Kerala High Court
Rajendra Prasad Vijayan vs The State Of Kerala on 29 March, 2021
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.27949 OF 2018(P)
PETITIONER:
RAJENDRA PRASAD VIJAYAN
S/O.VIJAYAN, AGED 68 YEARS, RAJENDRAVILASOM,
VACHEEKONAM, VAYYANAM PO, AYUR, KOTTARAKKARA,
KOLLAM
BY RAJENDRA PRASAD VIJAYAN(PARTY IN PERSON)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
PATTOM PALACE P.O., KESAVADASAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004
3 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, ASRAMAM,
KOLLAM -691001
4 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION,
KOLLAM -691013
W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 2
5 DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION
KOLLAM, PIN - 691013
6 KARTHIKA METAL CRUSHER,
VACHEEKONAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691 506,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR.BIJU.
7 KARTHIKA GRANITES AND METAL CRUSHER,
KALAYANIMUKKU, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691506
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR.BIJU
8 KARTHIKA GRANITE QUARRY,
VACHEEKONAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691506
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR.BIJU.
9 M/s.ADANI VIZHINJAM PORT PVT. LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ADANI HOUSE,
NR.MITHAKHALI SIX ROADS, NAVARANGPURA,
AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT - 380009
AND HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR,
VIPANCHIKA TOWERS, THYCAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO
MR.RAJESH JHA
10 MR.M.K.BIJU
S/O.M.KARUNAKARAN,
"KARTHIKA,
KUTTIKKAD POST,
KADAKKAL, KOLLAM - 691 536
W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 3
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ
SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR (SR.)
SRI.S.BIJU
SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER
SRI.SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS
SRI.K.J.MANURAJ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.BIJU BLAKRISHNAN, AMICUS CURIAE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 08-03-2021, THE COURT ON 29-03-2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of March, 2021.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges in this writ petition Ext.P12 quarrying lease issued to the tenth respondent for extraction of granite building stones under the Kerala Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2015 (the Rules).
2. The tenth respondent was earlier issued Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases under the Rules for the very same purpose, of which Ext.P1 was in respect of 0.7270 hectares of land in Survey Nos.158/6, 158/12-2 and 158/5 of Ittiva Village and Ext.P2 was in respect of 0.85 hectares of Government land in Survey No.161 of the very same village. W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 5 The said quarrying leases were issued on 24.03.2006 and the same were valid till 23.03.2018. Ext.P12 quarrying lease was issued thereafter to the tenth respondent on 17.02.2018 in respect of 1.0905 hectares of Government and private lands in Resurvey Nos.158/3, 158/5, 158/6, 158/7-2, 158/8, 158/10, 158/12-2 and 158/11 of Ittiva Village. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition in essence is that on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases, the tenth respondent has extracted minerals far in excess of the quantity permitted, flouting the various conditions stipulated therein, and such a person ought not have been issued a fresh quarrying lease. It is alleged by the petitioner that on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases, the tenth respondent has extracted 1,48,296 metric tons of granite stones in excess of the quantity permitted not only from the Government lands covered by the quarrying leases, but also from the adjoining Government and private lands. It is stated by the petitioner that he is residing W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 6 within 300 meters from the land covered by Ext.P12 quarrying lease; that the quarrying activity undertaken by the tenth respondent in the said land is causing air, water and noise pollution in the area and that the petitioner is suffering from various ailments on account of the same.
3. Several affidavits have been filed in the matter by the petitioner as also the official and party respondents. As I find that the averments in most of the said affidavits are irrelevant in the context of the essential question raised by the petitioner in the writ petition viz, whether the competent authority under the Rules was justified in issuing Ext.P12 quarrying lease to the tenth respondent, I am referring in this judgment only to the affidavits which are relevant in the context.
4. The third respondent, the District Geologist has filed a counter affidavit in the matter on 07.11.2018 admitting that the tenth respondent has extracted minerals in excess of W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 7 the quantity permitted in terms of Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases. The stand taken by the third respondent in the said counter affidavit, however, is that the extraction of minerals over and above the permissible quantity is a compoundable offence and the offences committed by the tenth respondent in this regard have been compounded on payment of the sum payable in terms of Rule 108(2) of the Rules.
5. The tenth respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the matter on 15.11.2018 stating, among others, that the petitioner has approached the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara in O.S No.266 of 2017 seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining him from conducting quarrying operations in the lands covered by Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases; that the application for temporary injunction was rejected by the court and therefore the writ petition is barred by principles of constructive res judicata. It was also contended by the tenth respondent in the W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 8 counter affidavit that he did not contravene the terms of Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases; that the petitioner is one of his close relatives; that the petitioner is residing permanently in South Africa; that the petitioner visits his family house near the land covered by Ext.P12 quarrying lease only occasionally; that the allegations made in the writ petition as regards the pollution caused on account of the operation of the quarry in the land covered by Ext.P12 quarrying lease are incorrect and that the writ petition is one filed by the petitioner who is on inimical terms with him, without any bona fides, to wreak vengeance on him.
6. The third respondent has filed an additional counter affidavit in the matter on 18.10.2019, furnishing the particulars of the unauthorized extraction of minerals made by the tenth respondent and the offences committed thereby which have been compounded by the competent authority. Among the cases referred to in the said counter affidavit, five W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 9 cases pertain to the Government lands in Ittiva Village, of which two pertain to the Government land covered by Ext.P2 quarrying lease and the remaining three pertain to the Government and private lands adjoining to the Government land covered by Ext.P1 quarrying lease. It is stated in the said counter counter affidavit that a sum of Rs.68,50,849/- has been collected from the tenth respondent in connection with the compounding of the said offences.
7. The tenth respondent has filed a reply affidavit on 05.11.2019 to the additional counter affidavit filed by the third respondent dated 18.10.2019, stating that only three cases out of the five cases referred to in the counter affidavit have been registered in respect of the lands covered by Ext.P12 quarrying lease and that he has remitted the amounts claimed in this regard since his application for a fresh quarrying lease would not have been processed otherwise. W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 10
8. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the matter on 15.11.2019, stating, among others that in the inspection report forwarded along with the application preferred by the tenth respondent for the fresh quarrying lease, only two out of the eight cases mentioned in the additional counter affidavit filed by the third respondent on 18.10.2019 have been disclosed. The second respondent has also made available a copy of the proceedings issued by him for issuing Ext.P12 quarrying lease to the tenth respondent as Ext.R2(c).
9. It is seen that this Court entertained a doubt in this matter as to whether a holder of a quarrying lease who has committed violation of the terms of the lease could still be issued a fresh quarrying lease taking the stand that the offences have been compounded, and consequently passed an interim order on 07.01.2020 directing the official respondents to file a detailed affidavit enumerating the leases held by the W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 11 tenth respondent and nature of violations found earlier, including the number of compoundings offered to him. The said interim order reads thus:
"I have commenced hearing these matters today and have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.M.R.Rajendran Nair, instructed by Sri.Johnson Gomez, appearing on behalf of the party respondent - Sri.Biju as also the learned Additional Advocate General - Sri.Renjith Thamban, assisted by Sri.Hanil Kumar, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents. I have also heard Dr.Rajendra Prasad Vijayan - the petitioner who is appearing in person, as also Sri.Siju Kamalahasanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28715/2019; Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority and Sri.Biju Balakrishnan, learned Amicus Curiae.
2. During hearing, my attention was drawn to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Government on 17.10.02019, wherein the details of the Mining leases of Sri.Biju, as also the violations allegedly committed by him, have been placed on record as Annexures R3(a) and R3(b). Even though the learned Additional Advocate General - Sri.Renjith Thamban submits that there are only 8 violations, Sri.Siju Kamalahasanan, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28715/2019, submits that a reply affidavit has been filed by his client wherein 29 violations have been listed at the W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 12 hands of the aforementioned Sri.Biju. Obviously, therefore, there is real dispute of facts with respect to the number of violations and the nature of violations, particularly because Dr.Rajendra Prasad Vijayan, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27949/2018, shows this Court Ext.P15 produced in the said writ petition, wherein various transgressions appear to have been noticed by the competent Authorities; however, leading to exoneration of Sri.Biju on payment of the seigniorage, fees, fines and such other.
3. When I consider all these issues, certain very acme aspects come to the fore, as to how the competent Authorities could have allowed the holder of a Mining lease to commit violations and that too numbering more than 8 (as stated by the Additional Advocate General) or 29 (as stated by Sri.Siju Kamalahasanan) and still reward him with extensions of the mining leases merely because all such offences were compounded under the provisions of Rule 111 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. When I say this, it must not be misunderstood that I have affirmatively concluded that Sri.Biju has committed the offences as alleged by Sri.Siju Kamalahasanan but only that this Court requires clarity as to the real nature of the violations as also as to how these violations were compounded, leading to renewal of the leases in favour of Sri.Biju.
4. That said, I must also record the submissions made on behalf of the State by the learned Additional Advocate General that the State proposes to amend Rule 51 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules so as to make W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 13 renewal of leases restricted or impossible in the cases where the lease holder violates law and commits serious offences like over - extraction and trespass into the areas which are not authorised.
5. I do not propose to say anything further at this stage because, the learned Additional Advocate General seeks time to place a detailed affidavit on record enumerating the leases presently possessed by Sri.Biju and the nature of violations found earlier, including the number of compounding offered to him by the competent Authorities.
6. I am of the view that this Court will certainly require the afore information for a comprehensive assessment on all the aspects involved in these cases and also that the learned Amicus Curiae - Sri.Biju Balakrishnan, will be better equipped by such information, when he makes submissions to assist this Court.
Further, the learned Additional Advocate General will, on the next posting date, inform this Court as to the period within which the State intends to amend Rule 51 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules as stated by him.
I, therefore, adjourn these matters for further consideration on 15.01.2020."
As revealed from the extracted order, it was represented in the course of the arguments that the State is proposing to amend Rule 51 of the Rules so as to refuse renewal of quarrying lease to persons who have violated the terms of the grant earlier and W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 14 this Court, therefore, directed the State to inform the time limit within which the said amendment would be brought to the Rules.
10. An additional counter affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Tahsildar on behalf of the fourth respondent in the matter on 13.01.2020 pursuant to the interim order dated 07.01.2020, furnishing the information on several short term permits issued to the tenth respondent on different dates for conducting quarrying operations in Survey No.161/1 of Ittiva Village. It is stated in the said counter affidavit that the tenth respondent extracted more quantity of minerals than what was permitted based on such permits on several occasions; that 17 Land Conservancy cases have been booked against the tenth respondent in this regard; that the excess quantity of granite stones extracted by the tenth respondent was assessed by the Tahsildar and since the tenth respondent has remitted the amount assessed as payable by him namely Rs.7,57,543/-, the W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 15 said Land Conservancy cases have been closed.
11. The State has filed a counter affidavit in the matter on 15.01.2020 pursuant to the interim order dated 07.01.2020 stating, among others, that the competent authority has exercised the discretion to compound the offences committed by the tenth respondent indiscriminately without taking into account the magnitude of the offences committed; that compounding provision is one intended to ensure that trivial infractions of the Rules do not result in harassment to the lessee and that the said provision cannot be used to condone the successive violations of the statutory provisions involving extraction of large quantity of minerals. It is also stated in the said counter affidavit that instruction would be issued to the authorities concerned to refrain from exercising the compounding power otherwise than in accordance with law.
W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 16
12. On 26.06.2019, this Court appointed Sri.Biju Balakrishnan, an advocate of this Court as amicus curiae in this matter. The amicus curiae has filed an interim report in this matter on 20.12.2019 stating, among others, that the Rules do not prohibit grant of fresh quarrying lease or renewal of existing quarrying lease to a person on whom proceedings have been initiated under Rule 108 of the Rules. It is also stated by the amicus curiae in the report that clause 16 of Ext.P12 quarrying lease prescribed under the Rules confers power on the competent authority to revoke the lease granted to a person, if he commits breach of any of the conditions of the lease.
13. Heard the petitioner who appeared in person, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned Senior Counsel for the tenth respondent.
14. Placing reliance on the various affidavits filed by the official respondents, the petitioner pointed out that the W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 17 tenth respondent has not disputed the fact that several proceedings have been initiated against him under the Rules for having extracted minerals from the Government lands unauthorizedly and that all such proceedings have been compounded. According to the petitioner, the tenth respondent being a violator of law, he cannot be granted a privilege by the State in the form of a quarrying lease.
15. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the tenth respondent pointed out that no proceedings whatsoever has been initiated against the tenth respondent at any point of time alleging violation of any of the terms in Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases. Similarly, it was pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that the tenth respondent has also not been convicted for any offence punishable under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 or the Rules made thereunder. According to the learned Senior Counsel, such a person cannot be denied a quarrying lease if he is W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 18 otherwise entitled for the same. It was also contended by the learned Senior Counsel that merely for the reason that the offences committed by the tenth respondent have been compounded repeatedly and that penalty was imposed on him under the Land Conservancy Act, he cannot be denied the privilege of the quarrying lease. In essence, the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel is that Ext.P12 quarrying lease is in order.
16. The learned Government Pleader reiterated the stand of the State as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State on 15.01.2020.
17. The short question that emerges from the long pleadings of the parties and the lengthy arguments advanced by the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondents, is whether the competent authority under the Rules was justified in issuing Ext.P12 quarrying lease to the tenth respondent.
W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 19
18. As noted, the case of the petitioner is that the authorities under the Rules are not justified in issuing Ext.P12 quarrying lease to the tenth respondent who has extracted minerals far in excess of the quantity permitted, trespassing into unauthorized lands, flouting the various conditions imposed on him in terms of the earlier leases and violating the provisions of the Rules. The tenth respondent does not admit that he has flouted the terms of the earlier quarrying leases viz, Exts.P1 and P2 nor does he admit that he has violated any of the provisions of the Rules while extracting minerals on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases. On the other hand, he asserts in the various counter affidavits filed in the matter that no proceedings whatsoever have been initiated against him alleging contravention of the terms of Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases or the provisions of the Rules. As such, before proceeding to consider the question formulated for decision, it W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 20 is necessary to consider the correctness of the factual premise on which the petitioner seeks relief in the matter.
19. In terms of the Rules, minerals are to be extracted by a quarrying lessee in accordance with the approved mining plan. The approved mining plan specifies the quantity of minerals permitted to be extracted and also the area from which the extraction is to be made. Rule 68 of the Rules provides that a quarrying lessee is bound to carry out quarrying operations in accordance with the approved mining plan. As noted, in the additional counter affidavit filed on 18.10.2019, the third respondent has furnished the particulars of the extraction of minerals made by the tenth respondent unauthorizedly during and before the period during which he was holding Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases. A perusal of the said counter affidavit together with Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases would reveal that the unauthorized extraction of minerals made by the tenth respondent referred to in the W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 21 affidavit was from the Government land covered by Ext.P2 quarrying lease and from the lands adjoining the Government land covered by Ext.P1 quarrying lease. The said counter affidavit would also reveal that in respect of the said unauthorized extraction of minerals made by the tenth respondent, a sum of Rs.43,00,549/- has been demanded from the tenth respondent and he has remitted the same. The tenth respondent does not dispute the aforesaid facts. The amount demanded from the tenth respondent in this regard is presumably under Rule 108(2) of the Rules. Further, Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases confer right on the tenth respondent only to extract mineral from the leasehold mentioned therein. In other words, extracting minerals beyond the boundaries of the leasehold would amount to breach of the terms of the quarrying lease. Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases categorically provide that the provisions of the Rules will form part of the leases and the lessee shall be bound by the said Rules as well. W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 22 The tenth respondent, in the circumstances, cannot be heard to contend that he has not contravened the provisions of the Rules or the terms of the lease in the matter of extracting minerals on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases.
20. The moot question is as to whether the contravention of the provisions of the Rules and terms of Exts.P1 and P2 quarrying leases by the tenth respondent would preclude the authorities from granting a fresh quarrying lease to him under the Rules or does it dis-entitle the tenth respondent from claiming a fresh quarrying lease from the Government. The competent authorities under the Rules as also the tenth respondent assert that the Rules does not preclude the competent authorities from granting a fresh lease to a person who has contravened the provisions of the same and extracted minerals while holding an earlier quarrying lease. Raising of minerals contravening the provisions of the Rules is an offence punishable under Rule 108(1) of the Rules. W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 23 The stand of the competent authorities is that insofar as the offences committed under the said provision have been compounded by collecting the amount in terms of Rule 108(2) of the Rules from the tenth respondent, there cannot be any impediment in granting a fresh lease to him. The correctness of this stand needs to be examined.
21. Rule 50 of the Rules confers discretion on the competent authority to cancel the lease if the lessee violates any of the conditions subject to which the lease is granted. Rule 50 of the Rules reads thus:
50. Cancellation of quarrying lease.--If the Government or competent authority under these rules has reason to believe that the lease granted is in contravention of provisions of any other law or the lessee has violated any of the conditions subject to which the lease is granted, the Government or the competent authority may, after giving the lessee an opportunity of being heard, direct him not to undertake any quarrying operations in the area of the lease and may cancel the lease and in such cases the quarried materials lying on the land from which they are extracted shall become the absolute property of the W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 24 Government. In such an event, all the royalties and rents paid in advance or part thereof that may stand to the credit of the lessee shall also be forfeited to Government:
Provided that where the competent authority is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of regulation of quarries and mineral development, preservation of natural environment, control of floods, prevention of pollution or to avoid danger to public health or communications or to ensure safety of buildings, monuments or other structures or for such other purposes, as the competent authority may deem fit, he may, by an order terminate the quarrying lease with respect to the area or any part thereof covered by such lease. If the lease granted to a person is liable to be cancelled in terms of the Rules in the event of the lessee committing breach of the terms of the lease, it can certainly be held that the scheme of the Rules is that a person who commits breach of the terms of the lease will not be entitled to a further lease under the Rules in respect of the same land, for if it is held that such persons are entitled to further lease either in the form of renewal or fresh lease in respect of the same land, the Rule W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 25 aforesaid would become redundant and meaningless. Further, the terms of quarrying lease under the Rules are statutorily prescribed. Form H to the Rules is the statutory prescription concerning the lease and it is in the said Form that quarrying leases are being executed. Clause 15 of Form H reads thus:
"15. If the lessee/lessees shall be desirous of taking a further lease of the said lands for a further term of .....
years he/they shall give three months' previous notice in writing of such desire to the State Government/competent authority and if the lessee/lessees has/have duly observed all the conditions of this lease, the State Government/competent authority may agree to renew the lease for such further term and on such terms and conditions as the State Government/competent authority may determine which shall be in accordance with the provisions of these rules."
The extracted Clause would show that if the lessee is desirous of taking a further lease of the leasehold for a further period, he shall give three months' previous notice in writing of such desire to the competent authority and the competent authority W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 26 may agree to renew the lease for such further term, if the lessee has duly observed all the conditions of the lease. The said provision makes it clear that if the lessee has committed breach of any of the conditions of the lease, the competent authority cannot exercise the discretion conferred on him to renew the lease. Obviously, the said provision would apply only to cases where lease has not been terminated for the breach committed by the lessee. Rule 51 of the Rules provides that where an applicant for renewal of quarrying lease is convicted for illegal quarrying, the competent authority may refuse to renew such quarrying lease. Rule 51 of the Rules reads thus:
51. Refusal for renewal of quarrying lease.--Where an applicant for renewal of quarrying lease is convicted for illegal quarrying, and there are no interim orders of any court of law suspending the operation of the order of such conviction in appeals pending against such conviction in any court of law, the Government or the competent authority may, after giving such applicant an opportunity of being heard and for reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant, refuse to renew such quarrying lease.
A combined reading of Clause 15 of Form H of the Rules as also W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 27 Rules 50 and 51 of the Rules would show that Clause 15 of Form H and Rule 50 are land specific, whereas, Rule 51 is a general provision which confers power on the competent authority to refuse renewal of a quarrying lease to a person convicted for illegal quarrying. I am taking the said view, as otherwise, Rule 51 of the Rules would run counter to Clause 15 of Form H of the Rules.
22. Reverting to the facts, Ext.P1 quarrying lease was in respect of 0.7270 hectares of land in Sy.Nos.158/6, 158/12-2 and 158/5 of Ittiva Village. Ext.P12 quarrying lease is in respect of 1.0905 hectares of Government and private land in Sy.Nos.158/3, 158/5, 158/6, 158/7-2, 158/8, 158/10, 158/12-2 and 158/11 of Ittiva Village. In other words, Ext.P12 quarrying lease is in respect of the entire land covered by Ext.P1 quarrying lease and in respect of a few other lands. As such, though Ext.P12 is styled as a fresh quarrying lease, the same, in effect, is a renewal of Ext.P1 quarrying lease. Ext.P1 is a W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 28 quarrying lease executed in a statutory form. Clause 14 therein is the clause corresponding to Clause 15 of Form H of the Rules. As found above, by extracting minerals over and above the quantity permitted and by extracting minerals from the lands other than the lands covered by the leases, the tenth respondent has committed breach of the terms of the lease. As such, in the light of Clause 15 of Form H of the Rules, the competent authority was precluded from granting a fresh lease in respect of the Government land covered by Ext.P1 to the tenth respondent. Ext.P12 lease insofar as it relates to the Government land covered by Ext.P1 quarrying lease is, therefore, illegal.
23. As noted, Rule 51 of the Rules confers authority on the competent authority to refuse to renew a quarrying lease, if the applicant is a person convicted for illegal quarrying. The specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the tenth respondent in this regard is that Rule 51 W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 29 has no application since Ext.P12 is a fresh quarrying lease and that the tenth respondent has never been convicted for illegal quarrying. As held above, the said provision confers power on the competent authority to refuse renewal of an existing quarrying lease to a person convicted for illegal quarrying. The logic behind Rule 51 of the Rules being that a violator of the provisions of the Rules is not entitled to the privileges under the Rules, the same shall apply with equal force in the context of a fresh grant as well. Further, the materials on record indicate that though several cases have been booked against the tenth respondent for illegal quarrying, he was not prosecuted as the Geologist concerned has compounded the offences committed by him, in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 111 of the Rules. The statement made by the Geologist to that effect in the affidavit dated 18.10.2019 reads thus:
"5. It is submitted that Sri.M.K.Biju was granted W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 30 lease dated 16.02.2018 to conduct the quarrying operation in Ittiva Village, Kottarakkara Taluk. The other two lease areas are situated in Kummil Village of the same Taluk. The lease holder had submitted applications to compound the offences committed by the 8th respondent in respect of the aforesaid three leases on different dates. The Geologist, Kollam have compounded the offences considering the request of the lease holder by imposing the fine amount. The true copy of the list of compounding of the offences is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3(b).
6. It is submitted that the offences have been compounded by the Geologist on various occasions exercising the power under Rule 111 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. On perusal of the relevant records, it was revealed that the lease holder committed the offences like extraction of excess quantity and extraction beyond the lease area. The lease holder is strictly warned by the Department not to repeat such offences during the currency on lease. It is respectfully submitted that if the lease holder again commits similar offences this respondent will take prompt action against the lease holder as provided under Section 4A of the MMDR Act."
Now the question that requires consideration is whether Rule 51 covers situations where offences committed under the Act or Rules have been compounded by the competent authority. In W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 31 Sri Kamatchi Theatre, v. District Collector, Madurai, 1999 SCC online Mad 854, the Madras High Court has held that compounding an offence would amount to admitting the commission of the offence. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read thus:
51. In the light of the above, the expression "composition" or "compounding of offence or irregularity" means accepting the acquiescence or irregularity committed or the violation of the statutory provision, and by compounding the offence, the person who is permitted to compound, admits the irregularity or violation. It may be for ever so many reasons, or it may be to avoid embarrassment or the situation, to purchase peace. By mere compounding, such an individual is not exonerated, nor a blank shield or protection cover is thrown against him for the commission or omissions for which compounding is permissible under law. Therefore, it follows when once the licensee compounds the offence under Section 15 of the Act, it would mean that the licensee had committed or is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence and on his application, is permitted to compound the offence. In other words, it is a clear verdict by confession to avoid penal consequences.
52. Section 15 of the Entertainments Tax Act is an enabling provision which enables the authorities to compound such person who has committed an offence or reasonably suspected of having W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 32 committed an offence against the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. By compounding the offence, by invoking Section 15 of the Act, die licensee or the person authorised by him admits the commission or omission of those offences or violations of statutory provisions for which a penalty or fine or imprisonment is provided for, as the case may be. In other words, it is an admission of the guilt and on payment of certain compounding fee, the accused person is to be proceeded, which would not ipso facto mean that he has been cleared of the accusations or the offences committed by him.
xxxxxx
55. In all these three cases, as well as in all the cases where the licensee had been permitted to compound the offence, and had been permitted to pay the compounding fee, it pre-supposes mat the individual licensees or the Manager, or the authorised agent admits the violation of the provision of the Entertainment Tax Act or the Rules and confess guilty of an offence punishable under the said Act. Only on mat basis, compounding is permitted by the authorities constituted under the Entertainment Tax Act. Compounding presupposes an admission of the misconduct which is either a technical or a statutory violation which is punishable under the statutory provision in respect of which compounding of the offence is permitted.
56. In other words, it is admission of the guilt which has led to the passing of an order of permission to compound, and there is W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 33 nothing further to be tried or to be gone into after the licensee had been permitted to compound an offence under Section 15 of the Entertainment Tax Act. It is a verdict by confession and, therefore, the consequences follows.
This Court has held in Noushad v. Forest Range Officer and others, 2018(1) KHC 499 that compounding involves admission of guilt of the accused concerned and in such cases it has to be treated as a conviction. The said judgment was rendered in the context of the request made by the petitioner therein for compounding the offence alleged against him under Section 52 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. The question considered was whether confiscation proceedings as provided for under Section 55 of the said statute would follow in respect of the vehicle involved in the commission of the offence as a consequence of the compounding of the offence. The relevant portion of the judgment reads thus:
4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader for Forests, in case of compounding under S.68 of the W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 34 Act, it involves the admission of guilt by the accused concerned and in such case, it has to be treated as a conviction within the meaning of S.55(1) of the Act.
If the word 'conviction' contained in Rule 51 of the Rules is understood in the light of the decisions aforesaid, it is evident that the competent authority under the Rules is clothed with the discretion to refuse to renew a quarrying lease in favour of a person who has committed illegal quarrying and compounded the same by remitting the statutory dues.
24. True, the word 'may' used in Rule 51 of the Rules indicates that the competent authority is not bound to exercise the power of refusal conferred under that provision in all cases of conviction for illegal quarrying and compounding of the offences booked for illegal quarrying. It is all the more so since non-compliance of any of the provisions, whether trivial or serious, would attract the offence punishable under Rule 108(1) of the Rules. It appears that it is on account of the said reason that a provision is made in the Rules for compounding W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 35 of offence committed under the Rules. As rightly conceded by the State Government in the affidavit filed in the matter on 15.01.2020 that the compounding provision is intended only to ensure that trivial and unintentional infractions of the Rules do not result in harassment to the lessee, and the said provision cannot be used to condone the successive violations of the statutory provisions involving unauthorised extraction of large quantity of minerals owned by the State. In other words, the scheme of the Rules is that except in cases of trivial and unintentional infractions of the Rules, the persons concerned are to be prosecuted. If the scheme of the Rules is understood in that fashion, it can certainly be held that the power conferred on the competent authority to refuse to renew an existing quarrying lease or grant a fresh quarrying lease under Rule 51 of the Rules is to be exercised in a case involving serious offences. The question is as to whether the offences committed by the tenth respondent in the case on hand which W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 36 have been compounded by the competent authority under the Rules are cases of serious nature warranting invocation of the power under Rule 51 of the Rules. In State of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjay, 2014 KHC 4558, the Apex Court has held that dishonest removal of minerals which is a property of the State also would constitute the offence of theft. In other words, removal of large quantity of minerals belonging to the State otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Rules repeatedly would certainly constitute the offence of theft punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. As noted, cases have been booked against the tenth respondent on several occasions for unauthorised extraction of large quantity of minerals and all those cases have been compounded by the competent authority by accepting the statutory dues in respect of the same. Similarly, several cases under the Land Conservancy Act have been booked against the tenth respondent for having encroached upon Government land W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 37 for extraction of granite building stones on the strength of short-term permits issued by the revenue officials. Even according to the State, having regard to the gravity, the offenses committed by the tenth respondent in this regard ought not have been compounded by the competent authority. In other words, in the light of the very serious nature of the offences committed by the tenth respondent and in the light of the admission of guilt made by him, it is a case where the competent authority ought to have exercised the power under Rule 51 of the Rules to decline to assign a fresh quarrying lease to the tenth respondent. I am fortified in the said view by the following observation made by the Apex court in Jayant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2020 SCC Online SC 989 :
"It might be true that by permitting the violators to compound the offences under the MMDR Act or the rules made thereunder, the State may get the revenue and the same shall be on the principle of person who causes the damage shall have to compensate the damage and shall have to pay the penalty like the principle of polluters to pay in case of damage to the environment. However, in view of the large scale damages being W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 38 caused to the nature and as observed and held by this Court in the case of Sanjay (supra), the policy and object of MMDR Act and Rules are the result of an increasing awareness of the compelling need to restore the serious ecological imbalance and to stop the damages being caused to the nature and considering the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid decision, reproduced hereinabove, and when the violations like this are increasing and the serious damage is caused to the nature and the earth and it also affects the ground water levels etc. and it causes severe damage as observed by this Court in the case of Sanjay (supra), reproduced hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the violators cannot be permitted to go scot-free on payment of penalty only. There must be some stringent provisions which may have deterrent effect so that the violators may think twice before committing such offences and before causing damage to the earth and the nature".
25. As noted, the main argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the tenth respondent was that merely for the reasons that the offences committed by the tenth respondent have been compounded repeatedly and that penalty was imposed on him under the Land Conservancy Act, he cannot be denied the privilege of the quarrying lease. The W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 39 said argument was made taking advantage of the fact that there is no express provision in the Rules conferring power on the competent authorities under the Rules to refrain from renewing an existing lease or granting a fresh lease to a person who had earlier committed illegal quarrying, and the offence committed by him has been compounded. I have already held that Rule 51 of the Rules covers such cases also. Even in the absence of a provision in the nature of Rule 51, according to me, the competent authority under the Rules has the necessary power to decline a fresh quarrying lease or renew an existing quarrying lease if the applicant is a habitual violator of law. Natural/material resources of the country belongs to the people and the State is holding the same in trust for the people. The State is certainly empowered to distribute the natural resources, but, in the light of Article 39(b) of the Constitution, the distribution of the same shall be in such a way as to subserve the common good in best possible manner. It is W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 40 well settled that no one has any legal or vested right to claim the grant or renewal of a mining lease [See Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited v. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 1]. As such, while distributing natural resources, the State and its officials are bound to act in consonance with the principles of equality and public trust and ensure that no action is taken which may be detrimental to public interest. The power to grant a fresh quarrying lease and renew an existing quarrying lease conferred on the authority is certainly a discretionary power. Discretion which is an effective tool in administration provides an option to the authority concerned to adopt one or the other alternative. A better, proper and legal exercise of discretion is one where the authority examines the fact, is aware of law and then decides objectively and rationally what serves the interest better. When a statue provides either guidance or rules or regulations for exercise of discretion, then the action should be in accordance with it. But, if statute is W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 41 silent, it cannot be said that the authority can act whimsically or arbitrarily. In such cases, the authorities have a duty to act prudently after taking necessary care to ensure compliance of the constitutional obligation that the grant or renewal of the quarrying lease, as the case may be, would serve the common good in best possible manner [See Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S Muddappa, (1991) 4 SCC 54]. The duty of care expected from the officials in the matter of granting/renewing quarrying leases is of a very high degree when compared to the duty of care expected from functionaries under other legislations. The duty of care is the legal responsibility of a person to avoid any behavior or omissions that could reasonably be foreseen to cause harm to others. The duty of care to be exercised by a statutory authority would depend upon various factors such as relevant statutes, rules, regulations, general standard of care etc. If specific duties are written into law, there may not be any difficulty for the W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 42 competent authority to discharge its functions. However, if specific duties are not written into law, the authorities must act with the same degree of care that an ordinary person of prudence would act in the same situation. What would an ordinary person of prudence entrusted with the responsibility to subserve the common good in best possible manner do, if he is asked to decide as to whether a fresh quarrying lease is to be granted to a person who has extracted large quantity of minerals unauthorisedly, whenever a permission was granted, that too, flouting the conditions of the grant and provisions of the Rules? I have no doubt in my mind that the decision of an ordinary prudent man in a case of this nature would always be against the tenth respondent. If one examines the scope of the discretion vested in the competent authority under the Rules to grant or refuse the quarrying permit in the light of the aforesaid propositions, it can be seen that even in the absence of any statutory power, the competent authority under the Rules are W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 43 bound to decline the request for grant of fresh quarrying lease in a case of the instant nature, to subserve the common good in best possible manner mandated by the Constitution.
26. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P12 quarrying lease is quashed.
Before parting with this judgment, it is necessary to mention that though the State Government has undertaken before this court in the affidavit filed in this matter on 15.1.2020 that appropriate steps would be taken to ensure that the power to compound the offences punishable under the Rules is not exercised by the competent authorities indiscriminately without taking into account the magnitude of the offences committed, nothing seems to have been done towards that direction for the last one year. Registry is, therefore, directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Industries, Government of Kerala to take appropriate measures, having W.P.(C) No.27949 of 2018 44 regard to the propositions laid down in this judgment to ensure that criminal law is set in motion against the violators and the power to compound the offences punishable under the Rules is not abused.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE PV WP(C).No.27949 OF 2018(P) 45 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE DATED 24.03.2006 ISSUED TO 0.7270 HECTRES OF PROPERTY SITUATED IN SURVEY NO.158 OF ITTIVA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE DATED 24.03.2006 ISSUED TO 0.85 HECTRES OF PROPERTY SITUATED IN SURVEY NO.161 OF ITTIVA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE-RENEWAL DATED 06.04.2015.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES OF THE PETITIONER DUE TO THE EXPOSURE TO QUARRY DATED 10.05.2017.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION ISSUED BY DR.K.JAYARAM DATED 14.03.2017.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.05.2017.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKARA DATED 16.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND GEOLOGIST, KOLLAM DATED 21.11.2017.
EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY GEOLOGIST DATED 06.02.2018.
EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY SMT.SREELATHA SOMAN AND JIJO VIJAYAN DATED 'NIL'.
EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE EXECUTED UNDER RULE 43 OF KMMC RULES DATED 17.02.2018.
WP(C).No.27949 OF 2018(P) 46 EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.2.2018 OF THE COMMISSIONER LAND REVENUE TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 THE TRUE COPY OF HTE INFORMATION FROM THE STATE INFORMATION OFFICER AND DISTRICT GEOLOGIST DATED 13.12.2017 EXHIBIT P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER -
COLLECTORATE KOLLAM DATED 29-11-2018 EXHIBIT P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER DATED 28-
11-2018
EXHIBIT P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FILE
NO.PCB/HO/KLM/ICE/1/2015
EXHIBIT P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SPM MEASUREMENTS FOR
SUMMER DAYS AVERAGE 7 TO 500 METERS RANGE
FROM KARTHIKA METAL CRUSHER UNIT
EXHIBIT P19 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO HIS
EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR OF KERALA STATE
EXHIBIT P20 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE TO THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM BY THE RESIDENTS OF VACHEEKONAM AND KALYANIMUKKU EXHIBIT P21 THE TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT MADE BY THE RESIDENTS TO THE STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD EXHIBIT P22 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF PROTEST TO THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KOLLAM EXHIBIT P23 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER COLLECTORATE KOLLAM EXHIBIT P24 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND ADMINISTRATOR SEIAA DATED 11-08-2017 EXHIBIT P25 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY WP(C).No.27949 OF 2018(P) 47 KERALA EXHIBIT P26 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESIDENTS TO THE SEIAA DATED 25-08-2017 EXHIBIT P27 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF PROTEST TO SEIAA FROM THE RESIDENTS AGAINST ISSUE OF EC TO KARTHIKA METAL CRUSHER AND QUARRY EXHIBIT P28 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM IVA/IA KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD APPLICATION FOR CONSENT PART II GENERAL INFORMATION 6 PRESCRIBING DISTANCE TO BE MAINTAINED FOR A CRUSHER UNIT FROM DRINKING WATER SUPPLY AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSES.
ANNEXURE A VIOLATIONS AND COMPOUNDING RECORDS OBTAINED THROUGH RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005 ON 21.11.2017 ANNEXURE B VIOLATIONS AND COMPOUNDING RECORDS OBTAINED THROUGH RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005 ON 06.02.2018 ANNEXURE C INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER COLLECTORATE KOLLAM ANNEXURE D INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM VILAGE OFFICER ITTIVA ANNEXURE E INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM VILLAGE OFFICER ITTIVA ANNEXURE F INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM TALUK OFFICE KOTTARAKARA ANNEXURE G INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM TALUK OFFICE KOTTARAKARA ANNEXURE H INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM TALUK OFFICE KOTTARAKARA ANNEXURE I INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM DISTRICT GEOLOGIST KOLLAM ANNEXURE J INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER COLLECTORATE KOLLAM WP(C).No.27949 OF 2018(P) 48 ANNEXURE K INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER COLLECTORATE KOLLAM RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R6(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN
O.S.NO.266/2017 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF
COURT, KOTTARAKKARA.
EXHIBIT R6(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.1621/2017 IN
O.S.NO.266/2017 BEFORE MUNSIFF COURT,
KOTTARAKKARA.
EXHIBIT R6(C) A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.713/2018 IN CMA
NO.43/2017 BEFORE THE SUB COURT,
KOTTARAKKARA.
EXHIBIT R6(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND FOREST DATED 30.11.2017 NO.637/SEIAA/KC/4908/2014.
EXHIBIT R6(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT VARIATION CONSENT NO.PCB/KO/CTO/R3/439/2017 DATED 27.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
EXHIBIT R6(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVES LICENSES NO.E/SC/KC/22/296(E11738) DATED 3.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE EXPLOSIVES DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT R6(G) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT STANDING COMMITTEE TO THE ITTIVA GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT R6(H) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.NLM/2018/09/223/1 DATED 18.9.2018 ISSUED BY JESCO (ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITY APPROVED BY KSPCB) EXHIBIT R6(I) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.AQM/2018/09/223/1 DATED 20.9.2018 ISSUD BY JESSO (ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITY APPROVED BY KSPCB).
EXHIBIT R6(J) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED MINING PLAN DATED 7.7.2017 (RELEVANT FRONT PAGE AND TABLE 9.1) ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R6(K) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.B5-9655/17 WP(C).No.27949 OF 2018(P) 49 DATED 12.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE CHARGE OFFICER ITTIVA GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT R6(L) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
REV.P2/422/2018-REV DATED 6/10/2018 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM EXHIBIT R6(M) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO. B5-23054/18 DATED 28-12-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE TAHASILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R6(N) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
REV.P2/93/2019-REV DATED 13/03/2019 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFFICER TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH NO. REV.
P2/392/20 REV DATED 27-02-2019 EXHIBIT-R6(O) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29/10/2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE KADAKKAL POLICE STATION ALONG WITH RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE KADAKKAL POLICE STATION EXHIBIT-R6(P) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER NO. REV-
92(393/2017) DATED 27/02/2019 EXHIBIT-R6(Q) TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE DATED 14/12/2017 IN INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY EXHIBIT-R6(R) TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE DATED 15/12/2017 IN THE INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY EXHIBIT-R6(S) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE 74TH MEETING OF THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT KERALA (PAGE NOS. 1, 36, 37 AND 38) EXHIBIT-R6(t) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.
GO(RT) NO.1324/12/ID.
EXHIBIT-R6(u) TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 29TH OCTOBER 2019 SUBMITTED BY THE WRIT PETITIONER COUNSEL BEFORE THE SUB COURT KOTTARAKKARA IN CMA.NO.43/2017.
EXHIBIT R2(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION (WITHOUT ENCLOSURES) FOR GRANT OF QUARRYING LEASE IN FORM - B DATED 19/06/2017.
EXHIBIT R2(b): A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE WP(C).No.27949 OF 2018(P) 50 GEOLOGIST, KOLLAM TO THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 29/06/2017.
EXHIBIT R2(c): THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DATED 16/02/2018.
EXHIBIT R6 (V) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR, MINING AND GEORLOGY DATED 16.02.2018 EXHIBIT R6 (W) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 528653/11 DATED 14.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE STATE INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA EXHIBIT R6 (X) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B1-12085/07 DATED 26.112007 ISSUED BY THE STATE INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA.
EXHIBIT R6 (Y) A TRUE COPY OF THE ENTIRE FILE RELATING TO THE ISSUE OF EXT.P12 MINING LEASE OBTAINED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT EXHIBIT R1 A THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER SRO NO.869/1995 DATED 22.06.1995 EXHIBIT R3 (A) i) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMITTEE REPORT
ii)COPY OF THE LIST OF QUARRYING LEASES CURRENTLY OWNED BY SRI.M.K.BIJU, KARTHIKA EXT.R3 (B) COPY OF THE LIST OF COMPOUNDING OF THE OFFENCES