Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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. 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 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.

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 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. 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.

A combined reading of Clause 15 of Form H of the Rules as also 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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.