IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6054 of 2009(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.V. DEVASSIKUTTY, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. VAREED, VAKLIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, SOUTH VELLARAPPILLY.P.O, CHOWARA THEKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THRISSUR. 2. ANNAMANADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ANNAMANADA.P.O, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (SPECIAL GRADE) 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE (P) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.FRANCO T.J. FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.6054 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT The prayers in this writ petition are to quash Exts.P11 and to direct the first respondent to issue dealer's licence to the petitioner on the basis of the application made by him, under the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1967. 2. The facts of the case are that, the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of bricks, having his unit at Erayamkudy, within the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent Panchayat. According to the petitioner, he is not excavating any clay but is bringing clay from outside the Panchayat and using the same in his industrial unit. Exts.P1 and P2 are stated to be the licenses issued by the Panchayat for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08. Exts.P3 and P4 are the dealer's licenses issued by the 2nd respondent for the years 2006- WP(c).No.6054/09 2 07 and 2008-09, to sell, stock and exhibit for sale of minor mineral under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. Ext.P5 is the consent issued by the Kerala Pollution Control Board to operate the industrial Unit for the period up to 31.12.2008. 3. Petitioner submits that, by Ext.P6 he sought renewal of Exts.P1 and P2 licenses issued by the Panchayat, which were stated to have been rejected by Ext.P7, for the reason that the petitioner had not produced the dealer's licence from the first respondent. In Ext.P7 there is also an allegation that the petitioner had not complied with the directions issued by the Kerala State Pollution control Board. It is stated that the petitioner also applied for the renewal of Exts.P3 and P4 dealer's licenses and that the first respondent rejected the application by Ext.P8 order, placing reliance on Ext.P9. 4. Ext.P8 order was challenged before this court in WP(c). No.31241/08. Referring to the impact of Ext.P9 and the decisions taken in the meeting of the Minister of Agriculture WP(c).No.6054/09 3 held on 8.3.2008, this court in Ext.P10 judgment held as follows; “Reading of Ext.P9 gives the impression that the prohibition imposed by this order is only excavation of clay. If as stated by the petitioner, he is purchasing and bringing clay from outside and utilizing the same for manufacturing bricks, such an activity does not come within the purview of Ext.P9. Therefore, it will be open to the Geologist to consider the application made by the petitioner for renewal of his permit provided the activity of the petitioner is as stated above. Counsel for the Panchayat, referring to Ext.P3 permit issued by the first respondent and Ext.P5 consent issued by the Pollution Control Board, contends that these orders have expired. It is clarified that even if the Ist respondent issues a permit, it will be the obligation of the petitioner to comply with all other statutory requirements, if he is to engage in the brick manufacturing activities.” 5. Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered and by Ext.P11 the first respondent declined to renew the dealer's licence of the petitioner, on the basis that in the meeting convened by the Minister for Agriculture on 8.3.2008 it was decided to allow brick manufacturing units only till 31.5.2008. It is challenging Ext.P11, the writ petition is filed. WP(c).No.6054/09 4 6. A reading of Ext.P11 shows that the dealer's licence is refused to be renewed for the reason that in the meeting convened by the Minister held on 8.3.2008, it was resolved to allow brick manufacturing units to function only till 31.5.2008. Ext.P9 is the letter issued by the 3rd respondent referring to the Minister's meeting referred to above and it was relying on Ext.P9 itself that on the earlier occasion licence was declined to the petitioner by Ext.P8 order. When Ext.P8 was challenged before this court, this court referred to Ext.P9, and held that if the petitioner is bringing clay from outside and utilizing the same for manufacturing bricks, such activity does not come within the purview of Ext.P9. This judgment has become final and the view taken in the judgment that the activities of the petitioner's are outside the purview of Ext.P9 order, so long as he is not excavating clay has become final and binding on the parties. Now that, in Ext.P10 this court has taken the aforesaid view, it is not open to the first respondent to decline renewal of dealer's licence to the WP(c).No.6054/09 5 petitioner again relying on Ext.P9. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's application relying entirely on Ext.P9 cannot be sustained. 7. In the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent also, they are entirely relying on Ext.P9 and according to the first respondent, Ext.P9 imposed a absolute prohibition for the continuance of brick manufacturing units beyond 31.5.2008. In the light of Ext.P10 judgment referred to above, this stand of the respondent cannot be accepted. 8. However, in paragraph 6 of the statement, the first respondent has a case that the petitioner could not produce any valid document to prove that the stock of brick clay that he had in his premises, was brought from outside. This, certainly is a matter of concern and if the petitioner is having any unauthorized stock of brick clay, the respondents are always entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner and that statutory freedom cannot be curtailed in any manner and such power can be exercised, even if the WP(c).No.6054/09 6 licence is renewed. However, in view of the findings in Ext.P10 judgment, the stand taken by the respondents in Ext.P11 that the petitioner cannot be allowed the dealer's licence beyond 31.5.2008, cannot be accepted. For that reason Ext.P11 will stand set aside and the first respondent shall pass orders on the application made by the petitioner on 21.8.2008, for renewal of dealers licence under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1967, in the light of the findings in this judgment. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 2 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.6054/09 7