IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20758 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHERIYA KUNHIRAMAN, CHOYIMOOLA COLONY, MATHAMANGALAM, NAIKETTY, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES (A) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD 3. THE GEOLOGIST, MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE, P.O. MEENANGADI, WAYANAND. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, NOOLPUZHA. 6. THE DISTRICT EXPERT COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAND. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 20758/2009 -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT. 23-6-2009. EXT.P2 POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DT. 22-1-2009. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF SKETCH. EXT.P4 ORDER DT. 2-7-2009. EXT.P5 PROCEEDINGS DT. 29-4-2004. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 20758 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 13th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the owner in possession of 27.60 ares of land in Sy. No. 348/3 of Noolpuzha Village. The petitioner claims that the same is a paddy field. According to the petitioner, the paddy field of the petitioner is covered by sand and without removing the same, it is not possible for him to cultivate the property with paddy. For removing such sand, permit from the Geologist is necessary. The petitioner submitted Ext. P1 application before the 3rd respondent seeking such permission. The 3rd respondent rejected that application by Ext. P4 order on the ground that the petitioner has to produce a no objection certificate from the 2nd respondent. The petitioner challenges that order. According to the petitioner, the question of obtaining of permit can arise only under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, which do not contemplate a no objection certificate from the District Collector for the purpose of Ext. P1 application for removal of sand from own property. He points out that although by SRO No. 256/09 dated 12-3- 2009, a new Rule has been added to Chapter II of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, making it obligatory that every application for granting/renewal of quarrying permit in respect of minor minerals should be accompanied by a no objection certificate from the District Collector concerned, it is applicable only to applications under Chapter II, whereas the application of the petitioner is under Chapter III, which does not contemplate a NOC from the District Collector. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writs, directions or orders calling for the records leading upto Ext. P4 order of the 3rd respondent and quash Ext. P4 to the extent it rejecting Ext. P1 for want of NOC from the 2nd respondent; b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, W.P.C. No. 20758/2009 -: 2 :- order or direction compelling the 3rd respondent to grant the permit as sought for by the petitioner in Ext. P1 notwithstanding the production of NOC from the 2nd respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a time to be specified by this Honourable Court, in order to enable the petitioner to cultivate paddy in his paddy field during this season also.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent disputing the contentions of the petitioner. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The argument of the petitioner at first blush sounds very attractive. It is true that the amendment has been brought to only Chapter II of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, which deals with grant of permits in respect of lands and minerals belonging to Government. The grant of quarrying permit in respect of lands in which mineral belongs to a private person is covered by Chapter III, in which no such amendment has been made making it obligatory that application for permit should be accompanied by a NOC from the District Collector. But, I am of opinion that apart from the powers conferred under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the District Collector has a larger duty regarding mining of sand in areas within his jurisdiction, the source of power for which can be traced to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It has been held so by me in the decision of Gokuldas v. Geologist, 2009(3) KLT 924. When the District Collector has such a larger power de hors the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, I am of opinion that there is nothing wrong in insisting on a NOC from the District Collector for the purpose of obtaining mining permit from own property also. In Gokuldas's case, I have held that we are only trustees of the natural resources on earth and we are holding the same in trust for posterity. Unless there are some regulatory methods put in place by an appropriate authority, unscrupulous persons would over-exploit the natural W.P.C. No. 20758/2009 -: 3 :- resources depriving the next generation of the benefit of the natural resources to which the posterity is also entitled. That is why I have held that the District Collector has the appropriate power to regulate mining of sand in areas within the district under his jurisdiction. I am of opinion that such a power can be effectively implemented only if for all kinds of mining permits, whether for Government land or private land a NOC from the District Collector concerned is insisted upon. That only has been held in Ext. P4 order. Therefore, I do not find anything wrong with Ext. P4 order in which the Geologist insisted on a NOC from the 2nd respondent for consideration of the application for permit submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Ext. P4 order and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/