IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 2893 of 2005(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.PLAKKATTU GRANITE INDUSTRIES(P) LTD. PAYYANAMON, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THOMAS JACOB. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 2893/2005. ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF QUARRYING LEASE DT. 8-9-1999. EXT.P2 AMENDMENT TO KERALA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES. EXT.P3 APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION DT. 31-3-2004. EXT.P4 CHALLAN RECEIPT. EXT.P5 ORDER DT. 12-4-2004. EXT.P6 ORDER IN W.P.C.NO. 33919/04 DT. 30-11-2004. EXT.P7 RENEWED LEASE DT. 3-1-2005. EXT.P8 LETTER DT. 8-1-2005. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 2893 of 2005 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 16th October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a private limited company who obtained a mining licence, namely, Ext. P1, under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules originally for the period from 8-9-1999 to 7-9-2004. In the financial year 2000-2001, by Ext. P2, the Minor mineral Concession Rules were amended providing for payment of consolidated royalty by introducing a new chapter, viz. Chapter VII B in the Rules. As per the new Rule 48P, a registered metal crusher unit as defined in Rule 2(ix A) who holds a quarrying lease or permit is entitled to opt to pay consolidated royalty at the rate specified in Schedule IV instead of paying royalty at the rates specified in Schedule I. Under the new Rule 48W, it was stipulated that the period of registration for such payment shall be for the financial year for which it is granted and the period shall expire on 31st March every year unless a competent authority rescinds it earlier. 2. During the year 2004-2005, by Ext. P3 dated 31-3-2004, the petitioner applied for permission to pay consolidated royalty as per Rule 48P. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had also submitted an application for extension of the lease. However, as per Ext. P5 order dated 12-4-2004, the permission granted to the petitioner for payment of consolidated royalty was limited up to 7-9-2004, apparently because at the relevant time, the period of lease was to expire on 7-9- 2004. The lease was actually extended as per the direction in Ext. P6 order in W.P(C) No. 33919/1004 by Ext. P7 dated 3-1-2005. According to the petitioner, in so far as Rule 48W prescribes that the period of registration for payment of consolidated royalty shall be for the financial year expiring on 31st of March every year, the respondents are not empowered to restrict the permission to 7-9- 2004. W.P.C. No. 2893/2005 -: 2 :- 3. A counter affidavit has been filed in which the stand taken is that since the lease period expired on 7-9-2004, the registration also could not have been for a period beyond that date. 4. This court had, in this writ petition, by an interim order dated 9-3-2005, directed as follows: “The learned Government Pleader again prays for time. No counter statement has been filed. Sufficient opportunity has already been granted. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the interim prayer made in this Writ Petition deserves to be granted. Ext. P5 restricts that the validity of the licence issued shall be till 7.9.2005. The relevant rule shows that normally the period must be upto the end of the financial year unless cancelled earlier. I am, in these circumstances, of opinion that it should be directed that Ext. P5 shall remain valid till 31-3-2005. This interim direction is issued without prejudice to the rival contentions and without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to take action, if there be any breach of the conditions of the above licence. The respondents are given time to file counter statement. File counter statement in 45 days. Call after re- opening on 16-5-2005.” In view of the said order and in view of the subsequent extension of lease period as also the fact that the financial year for which the impugned registration was granted is long over, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the rival contentions. Instead, I dispose of this writ petition in terms of the above interim order. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/