Saji Kavalam vs The State of Kerala

A.M. Shaffique, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P7 stop memo and also seeks a direction to the 4th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 application for renewal of licence from the local authority. On account of Ext. P7 he is unable to operate his quarry is the complaint.

Ext.P7 came to be issued based on instructions issued by the Mining and Geology Director on 19.2.2014. It seems that certain complaints were filed by an organisation in the area to the Minister for Industries, who had directed the matter to be enquired into. It is on that basis stop memos were issued to all the quarries in the locality. The petitioner has a case that he has obtained all valid licence/permission for conducting the quarry and while issuing stop memo to other illegal quarry operators, petitioner''s quarry was also issued with Ext.P7. Ext.P10 is a report by the Geologist to the Director, Mining of Geology Directorate indicating that the petitioner is having a valid licence/permissions for conducting the quarrying activity.

Learned Government Pleader on instructions would submit that the petitioner is having all the licence/permissions. As far as the Panchayat licence is concerned, the period of licence had expired on 31.3.2014 and an application is seen to have been filed in terms of Ext.P6. The same has not been renewed so far. In so far as the the said licence has not been renewed, the Geologist will not be in a position to permit the petitioner to operate the quarry.

The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would however submit that Ext.P6, application to renew the quarrying permit has been filed as early as on 11.2.2014. In so far as the same has not been rejected, in accordance with the Rules, the petitioner has a deemed licence. That apart, the Panchayat has not considered the same on account of the pendency of the stop memo issued by the Geologist.

Having regard to these facts and circumstances, I am of the view that, if the petitioner is having valid licence/permissions nothing prevents the Geologist from modifying Ext.P7. As far as the Panchayat licence is concerned, it is for the Panchayat to either reject or renew the licence depending upon the facts and circumstances involved in this case. As contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, since no orders have been passed, the petitioner is entitled to operate the quarry, as the petitioner is having the deemed licence terms of Rule 12 (1) (c) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ''D & O Rules''.

Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, I am of the view that the Geologist has to pass appropriate orders with reference to further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as under:

The 3rd respondent shall reconsider the claim of the petitioner and withdraw Ext.P7 if the petitioner is having all licence/permissions from statutory authority including deemed licence in terms with Rule 12 (1) (c ) of the D & O Rules. It is made clear that nothing prevents the 4th respondent Panchayat from considering and passing appropriate orders on Ext.P6 application. The decision of the Geologist will always be subject to the decision taken by the Panchayat in this regard.