IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10549 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.VIJAYAN,AGED 55 YEARS,S/O.RAGHAVAN, "LAKSHMI",MILMA ROAD,KALLEPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD-678001. 2. THE GEOLOGIST,MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,PALAKKAD-678014. 3. THE ELAPPULLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REP;BY ITS SECRETARY,ELAPPULLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ELAPPULLY.P.O,PIN-678622,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................... W.P.(C).10549/2011 ....................... Dated this the 1st day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order dated 24.2.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent, whereby Ext.P1 application preferred for granting a mining permit allegedly in connection with the digging of a well/pond, has been turned down. The case of the petitioner is as follows: 2. Petitioner wanted to effect mining of a minor mineral, in connection with digging of a pond/well in the concerned property allegedly for facilitating agricultural operations, by way of irrigation. The petitioner approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C).7672/2011 stating that no such permission was actually required for digging of or renovation of ponds or wells or tanks in order to store water for irrigation, agriculture etc. The said writ petition, along with the connected matter, was disposed of as per Ext.P4 verdict; whereby the concerned authority ie., the second respondent herein, who was the sole respondent therein was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P1 application within the specified W.P.(C).10549/2011 2 time; which in turn has led to Ext.P5 order dated 24.2.2011, now under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Referring to the relevant provisions of law, particularly Rule 5 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, learned counsel submits that the necessity to obtain 'No Objection Certificate' from the District Collector is not there in the instant case, despite the recent amendment. The amended provision as it exists now, reads as follows:- “Every application for grant of quarrying permit in respect of minor minerals, mentioned in item 2 of schedule I appended to these rules shall be accompanied by a No Objection Certificate from the District Collector concerned.” Provided that an application for obtaining permission for digging up of or renovation of pods or wells or tanks and for the renovation of stagnant water bodies in patta, lands in order to store water for irrigation, agriculture, pisciculture (aquaculture) or for such other purposes where extraction of ordinary clay and/or ordinary sand is necessary the No Objection Certificate stipulated in this rule is W.P.(C).10549/2011 3 not mandatory but shall be accompanied by a certificate from the Agricultural Officer or officer in charge of Marine Products Export Development Agency or Department of Fisheries or Village Officer or local authority concerned to the effect that the applicant is in need of renovation of stagnant water bodies in patta land in order to store water for irrigation or agriculture or pisciculture (aquaculture) purposes, or for such other public purposes, as the case may be; Provided further that in the case of applications for extraction of ordinary clay from the lands specified in Government Orders issued from time to time in this regard, production of No Objection Certificate from the District Collector is not mandatory. It is contended that the petitioner's case does not fall within the scope and ambit of the rule, it being for agriculture/irrigation purpose and that Ext.P5 order passed contrary to the scheme of the statute/rule is liable to be set aside. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. W.P.(C).10549/2011 4 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the materials on record, particularly Ext.P1 application, Ext.P2 possession certificate and Ext.P3 certificate issued by the Village Officer, submits that the petitioner , satisfies all the requirements to sustain the claim and this being the position, it is not open to the second respondent to have passed Ext.P5 rejecting the application. More so, the Village Officer has clearly certified in Ext.P3 that, his inspection revealed that the requirement was for 'agricultural operation'. 6. Admittedly, no other document than Ext.P3, is produced before this Court to arrive at any such inference that the intention of the petitioner is for 'agricultural purpose'. It cannot be a matter of dispute that admitted fact does not require to be proved. (Section 58 of the Evidence Act). In the case in hand, it has been categorically admitted by the petitioner in clause 10 of Ext.P1 application that the mining activities are sought to be resumed “for the sale” of the mined article. Nothing has been mentioned in Ext.P1 application as to the alleged agricultural operation intended to be pursued by the petitioner. On the other hand, the idea of the petitioner has been given in explicit terms that the mining licence is W.P.(C).10549/2011 5 sought for in connection with the trade/business of the petitioner, of the mineral concerned. 7. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the grievance projected in the writ petition does not have any merit or bona fides and that the petitioner does not come with the purview of the proviso to Rule 5 of the KMMC Rules, 1967. The challenge raised against Ext.P5 is unfounded. Writ petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs