IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19601 of 2011(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.K.JYOTHIRAJ, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.C.V.KUNJUKKUTTAN, SANDHYA NIVAS, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (KSIDC), KESTON ROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695003. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. 3. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695033. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R1 SMT.MARIAM MATHAI FOR R1 GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19601 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER AWARDING THE TENDER IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT KSIDC, REFERENCE TVM/IGS/5- 78/1550 DATED 16.9.08 EXT.P2- THE TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) 162/2009/ID ACCORDING SANCTION FOR THE SAID MINING BY THE PETITIONER ON 14.12.09 EXT.P3- THE TRUE COPY OF G.O (MS) NO.203/2010/ID DATED 5.10.10 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.1051/M2/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.12.2010 EVIDENCING THE EXECUTION OF ORIGINAL MINING LEASE DEED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE GOVERNMENT EXT.P5- THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.1051/M2/09 DATED 3.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EVIDENCING REGISTRATION OF THE MINING LEASE DEED EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P6- THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINING LEASE DEED EXECUTED BETWEEN THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND THE PETITIONER DATED 9.12.2010 EXT.P7- THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 13.1.2011 EXT.P8- THE TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT REQUESTING HIM TO PROVIDE WITH THE LICENCE AGREEMENT TO BE SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 17.5.2011 EXT.P9- THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 2.6.11 EXT.P10- THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 9.6.2011 EXT.P11- THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.1051/M/2009 DATED 10.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P12- TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.7.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ............................................. W.P.(C).19601/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 17th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is an order issued by the first respondent on 4.9.2008, settling a tender in favour of the petitioner to mine Silica sand and to refill the area with red soil in 3.86 acres of land situated in Pallippuram Village, Cherthala Taluk, Alappuzha, subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the said communication. According to the petitioner, in pursuance to clause 4 of Ext.P1, Mining Lease Deed, with the Director of Mining and Geology was executed on 9.12.2010 and that immediately thereafter, several representations, including Ext.P7, were made to the first respondent to take steps for execution of the agreement in pursuance to Ext.P1. 2. There was no response and finally, to an application made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, he was given Ext.P9 reply dated 2.6.2011, accusing him for having inordinately delayed production of Mining Lease Deed and informing that on account of his fault, first respondent has gone ahead with their master plan to develop the land for setting up large scale projects. W.P.(C).19601/11 2 On that basis, he was informed that the first respondent was unable to consider the request of the petitioner to grant licence for mining Silica. It was at that stage, this writ petition was filed seeking to quash Ext.P9 and to direct the first respondent to execute licence agreement in pursuance to Ext.P1. 3. Petitioner has now produced Ext.P12 letter dated 23.7.2011 received by him subsequent to the filing of this writ petition by which, the respondent had called upon the petitioner to comply with the conditions specified therein in order to execute the licence. Although the petitioner is aggrieved by various conditions mentioned in the letter, in the absence of any challenge to the said letter in this writ petition, I am not called upon to examine the contention. 4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent, in which, petitioner is accused of having delayed the execution of the the Mining Lease Deed and that, he did not obtain necessary survey plan duly certified by the Superintendent of Survey and getting the master plan approved by the Director of Mining and W.P.(C).19601/11 3 Geology. Proceeding further, it is stated that the large extent of land, including the land covered by Ext.P1, is proposed to be handed over to the Defence Department for the establishment of Ordinance Factory in Cherthala. Therefore, it is stated that they are still willing to execute the agreement with the petitioner provided he will complete the work of removing Silica sand and refill the area before 31.12.2011. 5. The relevant averments contained in paragraph 3 and 4 of the statement read as under:- “...... However, on the assurance and undertaking of the petitioner that he will complete the mining of the Silica sand and refill the area with earth before December 2011. The petitioner has been issued a letter informing him to comply with the specific conditions for executing the License Agreement and comply with the conditions stipulated for the purpose. Since the land in question to be allotted to the petitioner has to be acquired for the purpose of Ordinance Factory of the Defence Department he has to complete the removal of Silica sand and refill the area before 31st December 2011. Subject to the said condition the license agreement has to be executed by W.P.(C).19601/11 4 the petitioner.” 6. Even after filing of the statement, petitioner does not appear to accept the offer as contained in Ext.P12 or in the statement. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reserving liberty of the petitioner to challenge the requirement of bank guarantee as stipulated in Ext.P12, petitioner is willing to execute the agreement as offered in the statement filed by the first respondent. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is closed leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the first respondent and to work out his remedies in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs