C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
- Court
- Kerala High Court
- Decided on
- 25-02-2026
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TH
WEDNESDAY, THE 25 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 40095 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
KARUVAKUNNEL ENTERPRISES
KUMARIKULAM, MATHAIPARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARNTER, PAUL MATHEW,
S/O.K.P.MATHEW (LATE), AGED 58 YEARS.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU S. NAIR
SMT.SMITHA BABU
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 001.
2 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
IDUKKI, PIN - 685 602.
4 THE TAHSILDAR
PEERMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 531.
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VAGAMON, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 503.
6 ANISH ABRAHAM
S/O.ABRAHIM, ATHIYANIL, TEEKOY P.O., KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686 580.
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
2
7 THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AUTHORITY
IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IDUKKI , PIN - 685 602.
BY ADV SHRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY
GP – SMT.NIMA JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.11.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C)NOS.9102/2022, 12096/2021 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 25.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TH
WEDNESDAY, THE 25 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13906 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
ANISH ABRAHAM
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O ABRAHAM, AGED 36 YEARS, ATHIYANIL,TEEKOY PO,
KOTTAYAM-688013.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
SRI.DIPU JAMES
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SRI.SETHURAM DHARMAPALAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA, PAINAVU PO,
IDUKKI -685501.
3 THE TAHASILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, PEERMEDE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685531.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE, VAGAMON, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685503.
5 MS KARUVAKUNNEL ENTERPRISES
KUMARIKULAM, MATHAIPARA PO, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685505.
GP – SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY
BY ADV SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.11.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.40095/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 25.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TH
WEDNESDAY, THE 25 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 38933 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
C.SANTHOSH KUMAR,
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.,CHAKRAPANI, AMBIKA BHAVAN, ELAPPARA, IDUKKI
DISTRICT, PIN-685501.
BY ADVS. SRI.N.K.SHYJU
SHRI.SHEEN JOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA,
PAINAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685603.
2 THE GEOLOGIST,
DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE,
CIVIL STATION, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-
685584.
3 ANISH ABRAHAM,
ATHIYIL HOUSE, TEEKOY.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN-686580.
BY ADVS. SHRI.S.KANNAN, SENIOR G.P.
SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN
SHRI.V.R.RAJESH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.11.2026, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.40095/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 25.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TH
WEDNESDAY, THE 25 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 12096 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
ANISH ABRAHAM
AGED 39 YEARS
ATHIYALIL HOUSE, TEEKOY P.O.KOTTAYAM-686 580.
BY ADVS.SHRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
IDUKKI, CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU P.O.KUYILIMALA,
IDUKKI-685 603.
2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC OFFICE COMPOUND, REVENUE COMPLEX,
TRIVANDRUM-695 001.
3 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
DIRECTORATE OF MINING & GEOLOGY, PATTOM,
TRIVANDRUM-695 004.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.11.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.40095/2018 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 25.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TH
WEDNESDAY, THE 25 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 9102 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
KARUVAKUNNEL ENTERPRISES
KUMARIKULAM, MATHAIPARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT,
PIN – 685 505,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, PAUL MATHEW,
S/O.K.P. MATHEW (LATE), AGED 62 YEARS, KARUVAKUNNEL
HOUSE, KUMARIKULAM, MATHAIPARA P.O., IDUKKI
DISTRICT
BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
SHRI.P.DEEPAK (SR.)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY
DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM,
PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695004
4 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST
OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685584
5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI, PIN - 685602
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
7
6 THE TAHSILDAR
PEERMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685531
7 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VAGAMON, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685503
8 ANISH ABRAHAM
S/O.ABRAHAM, ATHIYANIL, TEEKOY P.O., KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686580
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY
SHRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE
SMT.NEENU BERNATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.11.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).40095/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 25.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
8
“CR”
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
th
Dated this the 25 day of November, 2025
JUDGMENT
Since common issues are involved in these writ petitions,
they were heard and disposed of by a common judgment.
W.P.(C)No.13906 of 2018
2. The above writ petition is filed seeking a direction
nd
commanding the 2 respondent District Collector to issue a No
Objection Certificate (NOC) to the petitioner in respect of 8.2
hectares of Government puramboke for quarrying operation,
which is comprised in Sy.No.729, part of Vagamon Village,
Peerumedu Taluk, Idukki District, on the request made as per
Ext.P2 application. The petitioner has also sought for a direction
th
not to grant NOC to the 5 respondent on the basis of Ext.P7
th
application submitted by the 5 respondent. The contention of the
petitioner is that the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application for
the issuance of an NOC for quarrying lease in respect of 5
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
9
hectares of land. Later, Ext.P2 was submitted, wherein a request
was made for the issuance NOC in respect of 10 hectares of land.
rd
By Ext.P3, a report was submitted by the 3 respondent Tahsildar
in favour of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that
it is without looking into Ext.P2 application, which is for 10
hectares of land that Ext.P6 decision was taken to grant NOC,
th
limiting to 5 hectares and in the meanwhile the 5 respondent
nd
filed an application before the 2 respondent for the issuance of
NOC as per Ext.P7 and it is in the said circumstances that the
present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction
nd
commanding the 2 respondent District Collector to issue NOC to
the petitioner in respect of 8.2 Hectares of Government
Purampoke for quarrying operation and also seeking stay of grant
th
of NOC to the 5 respondent on the basis of Ext.P7 application.
W.P.(C)No.38933 of 2018
3. The above writ petition is filed by a permanent resident of
st
Vagamon Village of Elappara, mainly seeking a direction to the 1
respondent to hear the petitioner while issuing Environmental
rd
Clearance Certificate to the 3 respondent, who is the petitioner
in W.P.(C)No.13906 of 2018. The essential contention raised by
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
10
the petitioner is that Vagamon, being a tourist destination and the
area includes 123 villages, which has been declared as
ecologically fragile area under the Kasthuriragan report, if
quarrying is permitted, will cause serious damage to the
environment and ecology of the area. But a memo has been filed
seeking permission to withdraw the said writ petition.
W.P.(C)No.40095 of 2018
th
4. The above writ petition has been filed by the 5
respondent in W.P.(C)No.13906 of 2018 challenging Ext.P6 NOC
granted to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.13906 of 2018, who is the
th
6 respondent in the present writ petition and for a further
direction not to grant any lease of the property comprised in
Sy.No.729 of Vagamon Village, without following the procedures
contemplated under Law. The essential contention raised by the
th
petitioner is that the 6 respondent has made Ext.P1 application
for quarrying lease for 5 hectares of land comprised in Sy.No.729
rd
of Vagamon Village. The petitioner would contend that the 3
respondent never notified the said land as being available for
lease, so as to get public notice regarding the grant of lease of
property. Without doing so, the application was immediately
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
11
processed, and when the petitioner came to know about the same,
the petitioner also submitted Ext.P3 request in this regard for the
issuance of NOC for granting quarrying lease. The petitioner
submits that without considering any of the parameters and
without calling for tender, Ext.P6 NOC has been granted in the
th
name of the 6 respondent. It is in the said circumstances that the
present writ petition has been filed.
W.P.(C)No.12096 of 2021
5. The above writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in
W.P.(C)No.13906 of 2018 challenging Ext.P11, whereby the NOC
granted to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 has been cancelled. The
petitioner submits that Ext.P1 NOC has been granted after
following all the procedures prescribed under the Rules and after
obtaining all the requisite reports from the authorities concerned.
The petitioner submits that based on the NOC granted, the
petitioner has got all the clearances from all the authorities,
including SEIAA. While so, by Ext.P11 order, Ext.P1 NOC granted
to the petitioner has been cancelled, stating that the same has
been issued without complying with the directions issued by the
Government and the Land Revenue Commissioner in this regard.
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
12
W.P.(C)No.9102 of 2022
th
6. The above writ petition has been filed by the 5
respondent in W.P.(C)No.13906 of 2018, challenging Ext.P10
th
order issued by the 5 respondent District Collector, which was
issued based on Ext.P1 common interim order passed by this
th
Court, whereby the NOC granted to the 8 respondent was
confirmed. The petitioner submits that the said issuance of NOC is
without any transparency in dealing with public property and
overlooking Ext.P11 Rules in this regard.
7. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12096 of 2021 is that he had applied for
an NOC for conducting quarrying operation and as per Ext.P1, he
has been granted the said NOC. Since all the clearances could not
be obtained by the petitioner within the time granted in Ext.P1
NOC, extension of time was sought for and the 1st respondent
District Collector as per Ext.P4 extended the time limit for
submission of environmental clearance and for commencement of
quarrying operation for a further period of one year. Going by
Clause 21 of Ext.P1, quarrying operation should be started within
a period of two years from 10.04.2018 and the same would expire
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
13
on 10.04.2020 but by Ext.P4, the said period was extended for one
st
year more. While so by Ext.P11 order, the 1 respondent District
Collector cancelled Ext.P4 order. It is aggrieved by the same that
the present writ petition has been filed.
8. A detailed statement has been filed in W.P.(C)No.12096
st
of 2021 by the 1 respondent supporting Ext.P11 order, mainly
contending that relaxation was granted in the time limit for
submission of environmental clearance whereby extending the
time fixed as one year by one year more but in the case of the
petitioner in Ext.P1 NOC, he was granted two years itself for
submission of environmental clearance and without noticing the
same, further one year period was granted as per Ext. P4 and it is
in the said circumstance, noting the said anomaly that Ext.P11
was issued cancelling Ext.P4 order.
9. Whereas the contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.
9102 of 2022 is that the NOC granted to the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No. 12096 of 2021 is without following any transparent process
and when Government land is leased out to private individuals,
there shall be a public notice and the same cannot be gifted to any
person without any transparent process. It is further submitted
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
14
that the Government has issued Ext.P11 order dated 28.01.2021
stating the procedure for lease of Government land for mining
purpose and specifically mandating that it shall be given only by e-
auction. Having not done so, the NOC granted to the petitioner in
W.P.(C)No.12096 of 2021 is liable to be interfered with.
10. Since WP(C)No.9102 of 2022 is filed challenging
Ext.P10 no objection certificate issued in favour of the petitioner
in WP(C)No. 12096 of 2021 and seeking a direction to the official
respondents not to act upon the said no objection certificate and
in WP(C)No. 40095 of 2018, Ext.P6 no objection certificate issued
in favour of the petitioner in WP(C) No.12096 of 2021 is under
challenge, I am of the view that before considering the validity of
Ext.P11 order, challenged in WP(C) No.12096 of 2021, whereby
the NOC granted was cancelled, this Court should consider the
issue as to whether NOC granted to the petitioner in WP(C)
No.12096 of 2021, is valid in law.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
WP(C) No. 12096 of 2021, placing reliance on Section 14 of The
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
(hereinafter referred to as Act 1957) submits that the provisions
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
15
of Section 5 to 13 of the Act 1957 shall not apply to quarry leases,
mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor
minerals. Section 13 deals with p ower of Central Government to
make Rules in respect of minerals, and Section 13(2)(c) empowers
Central Government to make Rules regarding matters which may
t
be considered when application in respect of he same land are
received on the same day. Section 13(2)(d) empowers the Central
Government to issue Rules in the matter of the terms, conditions
and process of auction by competitive bidding and allotment in
respect of coal or lignite. Section 15 deals with the power of State
Governments to make Rules in respect of minor minerals. Section
15(1A)(c) mandates that the Rules could be framed regarding the
matters which may be considered where applications in respect of
the same land are received within the same day. The learned
counsel for the petitioner also refers to Kerala Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules,
2015'), which has been issued based on the power granted as per
Section 15 of the Act, 1957. Rule 27 of the Rules, 2015 deals with
application for grant of quarrying lease and Rule 27(2)(d)
mandates that a No Objection Certificate be issued by the revenue
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
16
authorities in case of revenue puramboke lands. Section 31 deals
with preferential right of certain persons, which provides that
when two or more persons have applied for quarrying lease in
respect of the same land, the applicant whose application was
received earlier shall have preferential right for the grant of the
lease over an applicant whose application was received later.
Rule 31 of the Rules 2015 reads as follows:
“31. Preferential right of certain persons.--
(1) Where two or more persons have applied for quarrying lease in
respect of the same land the applicant whose application was
received earlier shall have preferential right for the grant of the
lease over an applicant whose application was received later.
(2) The Government or the competent authority may, for special
reasons to be recorded grant a quarrying lease to an applicant
whose application was received later in preference to an applicant
whose application was received earlier.”
Based on the above said rules, the learned counsel for the
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12096 of 2021 would submit that he has
applied first for grant of NOC by the District Collector, for making
an application for quarrying lease and admittedly, the petitioner in
W.P.(C)No.9102 of 2022 has applied only later. Therefore, it is
contended that going by Rule 31, the petitioner in W.P.
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
17
(C)No.12096 of 2021 will have a preferential right, as his
application was received earlier. The learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner would further submit that there is no other
mandate in the Rule regarding the grant of NOC and for applying
for quarrying lease. It is further submitted that procedures for the
grant of lease of Government puramboke land by auction came
into force only as per Ext.P11 Government Order dated
28.01.2021, produced in W.P.(C)No.9102 of 2022, whereby
guidelines was formulated for the grant of NOC for quarrying
minerals from Government land, providing for a bidding process
for grant of such NOC. The petitioner would submit that the said
procedure as per Ext.P11, came much after the application was
submitted by the petitioner, inasmuch as Ext.P1 NOC was granted
on 10.04.2018, and the provisions of Ext.P11 cannot be applied to
the case of the petitioner.
12. It is true that going by the Rules, 2015, especially Rule
31, when two or more persons have applied for a quarrying lease
in respect of the same land, the applicant whose application was
received earlier shall have a preferential right. No other
procedure have been prescribed in the Rules, 2015. The District
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
18
Collector while issuing Ext.P1 NOC to the petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.12096 of 2021, admittedly, was dealing with the
Government property for which there should be a transparent
procedure to be followed. Here is a case where the petitioner
pointed out certain land in a particular area, and sought for a
grant of NOC. Petitioner has applied for grant of NOC which is
earlier in time. Though preferential right was claimed by the
petitioner relying on Rule 31 of the Rules, 2015, I am of the view
that an applicant can have a preferential right only when a
notification has been issued by the Government / District Collector
calling for application for grant of NOC and the applicants
pursuant to the said notification apply for the same and the
applicant who has submitted the application first will get a
preferential right for consideration of the application for grant of
NOC for quarrying lease. If such a preferential right is granted to
a person like the petitioner claiming seniority in the matter of
submission of application, which was admittedly done without any
notification calling for such application, definitely it will defeat the
interest of other applicants who would have applied for the same.
This is a case where no notification is issued and therefore there
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
19
is no public notice regarding the intention of the Government to
grant Government land on lease for quarrying purpose, without
which the public or other intending persons who has interest in
quarrying granite from the Government land could apply. In such
circumstances, only for the reason that petitioner has submitted
the application first, cannot claim the benefit of Rule 31 of the
Rules 2015 and the contention in this regard cannot be accepted.
13. While granting NOC for quarrying in Government land,
the 1st respondent District Collector was dealing with grant of
Government largesse and the Government is not free like an
ordinary individual, in selecting the recipients for its largesse and
it cannot choose to deal with any person it pleases in its absolute
and unfettered discretion and if the Government do so, it will lead
to discrimination and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. The Apex Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.
International Airport Authority of India & Ors. [(1979) 3
SCC 489] considered the constitutional obligations on the State
when it takes action in exercise of its statutory or executive power
and also considered as to whether the State is entitled to deal
with its property in any manner it likes or award a contract to any
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
20
person of its choice, without any constitutional limitations upon it
and held in paragraph 11 as follows:
“11. Today the Government, in a welfare State is the regulator and
dispenser of special services and provider of a large number of benefits,
including jobs contracts, licences, quotas, mineral rights etc. The
Government pours forth wealth, money, benefits, services, contracts,
quotas and licences. The valuables dispensed by Government take many
forms, but they all share one characteristic. They are steadily taking the
place of traditional forms of wealth. These valuables which derive from
relationships to Government are of many kinds. They comprise social
security benefits, cash grants for political sufferers and the whole
scheme of State and local welfare. Then again, thousands of people are
employed in the State and the Central Government and local authorities.
Licences are required before one can engage in many kinds of
businesses or work. The power of giving licences means power to
withhold them and this gives control to the Government or to the agents
of Government on the lives of many people. Many individuals and many
more businesses enjoy largess in the form of Government contracts.
These contracts often resemble subsidies. It is virtually impossible to
lose money on them and many enterprises are set up primarily to do
business with Government. Government owns and controls hundreds of
acres of public land valuable for mining, and other purposes. These
resources are available for utilisation by private corporations and
individuals by way of lease or licence. All these mean growth in the
Government largess and with the increasing magnitude and range of
governmental functions as we move closer to a welfare State, more and
more of our wealth consists of these new forms. Some of these forms of
wealth may be in the nature of legal rights but the large majority of
them are in the nature of privileges. But on that account, can it be said
that they do not enjoy any legal protection? Can they be regarded as
gratuity furnished by the State so that the State may withhold, grant or
revoke it at its pleasure? Is the position of the Government in this
respect the same as that of a private giver? We do not think so. The law
has not been slow to recognise the importance of this new kind of
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
21
wealth and the need to protect individual interest in it and with that end
in view, it has developed new forms of protection. Some interests in
Government largess, formerly regarded as privileges, have been
recognised as rights while others have been given legal protection not
only by forging procedural safeguards but also by confining / structuring
and checking Government discretion in the matter of grant of such
largess. The discretion of the Government has been held to be not
unlimited in that the Government cannot give or withhold largess in its
arbitrary discretion or at its sweet will. It is insisted, as pointed out by
Professor Reich in an especially stimulating article on "The New
Property" in 73 Yale Law Journal 733,
"that Government action be based on standards that are not arbitrary or
unauthorised."
The Government cannot be permitted to say that it will give jobs or enter
into contracts or issue quotas or licences only in favour of those having
grey hair or belonging to a particular political party or professing a
particular religious faith. The Government is still the Government when it
acts in the matter of granting largess and it cannot act arbitrarily. It does
not stand in the same position as a private individual”.
(underline supplied)
A similar issue was considered by the Apex Court in Kasturi Lal
Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir Through
Vigilance Organization & Anr. [(1980) 4 SCC 1] , wherein in
paragraphs 14 and 15, the Court held as follows:
“14. Where any governmental action fails to satisfy the test of
reasonableness and public interest discussed above and is found to be
wanting in the quality of reasonableness or lacking in the element of
public interest, it would be liable to be struck down as invalid. It must
follow as a necessary corollary from this proposition that the
Government cannot act in a manner which would benefit a private party
at the cost of the State; such an action would be both unreasonable and
contrary to public interest. The Government, therefore, cannot for
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
22
example, give a contract or sell or lease out its property for a
consideration less than the highest that can be obtained for it, unless of
course there are other considerations which render it reasonable and in
public interest to do so. Such considerations may be that some Directive
Principle is sought to be advanced or implemented or that the contract
or the property is given not with a view to earning revenue but for the
purpose of carrying out a welfare scheme for the benefit of a particular
group or section of people deserving it or that the person who has
offered a higher consideration is not otherwise fit to be given the
contract or the property. We have referred to these considerations only
illustratively, for there may be an infinite variety of considerations which
may have to be taken into account by the Government in formulating its
policies and it is on a total evaluation of various considerations which
have weighed with the Government in taking a particular action, that
the Court would have to decide whether the action of the Govt. is
reasonable and in public interest. But one basic principle which must
guide the Court in arriving at its determination on this question is that
there is always a presumption that the governmental action is
reasonable and in public interest and it is for the party challenging its
validity to show that it is wanting in reasonableness or is not informed
with public interest. This burden is a heavy one and it has to be
discharged to the satisfaction of the Court by proper and adequate
material. The Court cannot lightly assume that the action taken by the
Government is unreasonable or without public interest because, as we
said above, there are a large number of policy considerations which
must necessarily weigh with the Government in taking action and
therefore the Court would not strike down governmental action as
invalid on this ground, unless it is clearly satisfied that the action is
unreasonable or not in public interest. But where it is so satisfied, it
would be the plainest duty of the Court under the Constitution to
invalidate the governmental action. This is one of the most important
functions of the Court and also one of the most essential for
preservation of the rule of law. It is imperative in a democracy governed
by the rule of law that governmental action must be kept within the
limits of the law and if there is any transgression, the Court must be
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
23
ready to condemn it. It is a matter of historical experience that there is a
tendency in every government to assume more and more powers and
since it is not an uncommon phenomenon in some countries that the
legislative check is getting diluted, it is left to the Court as the only
other reviewing authority under the Constitution to be increasingly
vigilant to ensure observance with the rule of law and in this task, the
court must not flinch or falter. It may be pointed out that this ground of
invalidity, namely, that the governmental action is unreasonable or
lacking in the quality of public interest, is different from that of mala
fides though it may, in a given case, furnish evidence of mala fides.
15. The second limitation on the discretion of the Government in grant
of largess is in regard to the persons to whom such largesse may be
granted. It is now well settled as a result of the decision of this Court in
Ramana D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (AIR 1979
SC 1628) (supra) that the Government is not free, like an ordinary
individual, in selecting the recipients for its largesse and it cannot
choose to deal with any person it pleases in its absolute and unfettered
discretion. The law is now well established that the Government need
not deal with anyone, but if it does so, it must do so fairly without
discrimination and without unfair procedure. Where the Government is
dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into
contracts or granting other forms of largess, the Government cannot act
arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any
person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with some
standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The
governmental action must not be arbitrary or capricious, but must be
based on some principle which meet the test of reason and relevance.
This rule was enunciated by the Court as a rule of administrative law
and it was also validated by the Court as an emanation flowing directly
from the doctrine of equality embodied in Art.14. The Court referred to
the activist magnitude of Art.14 as evolved in E. P. Royappa v. State of
Tamil Nadu (AIR 1974 SC 555) (supra) and Maneka Gandhi's case (AIR
1978 SC 597) (supra) and observed that it must follow "as a necessary
corollary from the principle of equality enshrined in Art.14 that though
the State is entitled to refuse to enter into relationship with anyone, yet
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
24
if it does so, it cannot arbitrarily choose any person it likes for entering
into such relationship and discriminate between persons similarly
circumstanced, but it must act in conformity with some standard or
principle which meets the test of reasonableness and non discrimination
and any departure from such standard or principle would be invalid
unless it can be supported or justified on some rational and non
discriminatory ground". This decision has reaffirmed the principle of
reasonableness and non arbitrariness in governmental action which lies
at the core of our entire constitutional scheme and structure.'
(underline supplied)
st
In the light of the above, the 1 respondent, District Collector,
while issuing NOC for conducting quarry in Government
puramboke land, should have devised a proper procedure giving
public notice regarding the intention of the Government to permit
quarrying operation in Government puramboke land. In the
present case, without following any such procedure, NOC has
been granted on the mere asking, which is absolutely arbitrary
and unjust and a clear violation of the principles enumerated by
the Apex Court in the above-quoted judgments. It is in the said
circumstance that Ext.P11 Government Order dated 28.01.2021
produced in WP(C)No.9102 of 2022 was issued, whereby
guidelines was formulated for the grant of NOC for quarrying
minerals from the Government land, providing for a bidding
process for the grant of NOC. Therefore, I am of the opinion that
the NOC granted in favour of the petitioner in WP(C)No.12096 of
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
25
2021 being one issued without following any procedure, is liable
to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside.
Consequently, I uphold Ext.P11 order in WP(C)No.12096 of 2021
since I have already found that the grant of NOC itself was
without following any procedures. It is also made clear that the
petitioner in WP(C)No.13906 of 2018 also cannot act on Ext.P9
NOC granted in his favour since the same was also issued without
following any procedures as stated above, and the same is also set
aside.
1 4.Yet another aspect to be noted is that the application for
issuance of NOC is sought for conducting quarrying operation in
Government puramboke land comprised in Survey No. 729, which
is in Vagamon Village, Peerumade Taluk, Idukki District. Vagamon
is a peaceful hill station located in the Western Ghats at an
altitude of about 1,100 meters above sea level. Because of its
height, the area has a cool and pleasant climate throughout the
year. It is known for its rolling green meadows, rocky hills,
valleys, and misty atmosphere, which have earned it the nickname
“Scotland of Asia .” The region receives heavy monsoon rains
and supports rich biodiversity and plantations. Over time,
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
26
Vagamon has developed into a well-known tourist destination due
to its natural beauty. It has also received international
recognition, including being featured by National Geographic
Traveler as one of the must-visit places in India.
15. The Apex Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and
Others[(1997) 1 SCC 388] has held that common properties such
as rivers, seashore, forests and the air are held by Government in
trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the general public,
importing the Doctrine of Public Trust as follows:-
“24. The ancient Roman Empire developed a legal theory known
as the “Doctrine of the Public Trust”. It was founded on the ideas
that certain common properties such as rivers, seashore, forests and
the air were held by Government in trusteeship for the free and
unimpeded use of the general public. Our contemporary concern
about “the environment” bear a very close conceptual relationship to
this legal doctrine. Under the Roman law these resources were
either owned by no one (res nullious) or by every one in common (res
communious). Under the English common law, however, the
Sovereign could own these resources but the ownership was limited
in nature, the Crown could not grant these properties to private
owners if the effect was to interfere with the public interests in
navigation or fishing. Resources that were suitable for these uses
were deemed to be held in trust by the Crown for the benefit of the
public. Joseph L. Sax, Professor of Law, University of Michigan —
proponent of the Modern Public Trust Doctrine — in an erudite
article “Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law : Effective
Judicial Intervention”, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 68, Part 1 p. 473,
has given the historical background of the Public Trust Doctrine as
under:
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
27
“The source of modern public trust law is found in a
concept that received much attention in Roman and English
law — the nature of property rights in rivers, the sea, and
the seashore. That history has been given considerable
attention in the legal literature, need not be repeated in
detail here. But two points should be emphasized. First,
certain interests, such as navigation and fishing, were
sought to be preserved for the benefit of the public;
accordingly, property used for those purposes was
distinguished from general public property which the
sovereign could routinely grant to private owners. Second,
while it was understood that in certain common properties
— such as the seashore, highways, and running water —
‘perpetual use was dedicated to the public’, it has never
been clear whether the public had an enforceable right to
prevent infringement of those interests. Although the State
apparently did protect public uses, no evidence is available
that public rights could be legally asserted against a
recalcitrant government.”
25. The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that
certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great
importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to
make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a
gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone
irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the
Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general
public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or
commercial purposes. According to Professor Sax the Public Trust
Doctrine imposes the following restrictions on governmental authority:
“Three types of restrictions on governmental authority
are often thought to be imposed by the public trust : first,
the property subject to the trust must not only be used for
a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by
the general public; second, the property may not be sold,
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
28
even for a fair cash equivalent; and third the property must
be maintained for particular types of uses.”
26. The American law on the subject is primarily based on the
decision of the United States Supreme Court in Illinois Central Railroad
Co. v. People of the State of Illinois [146 US 387 : 36 L Ed 1018 (1892)] .
In the year 1869 the Illinois Legislature made a substantial grant of
submerged lands — a mile strip along the shores of Lake Michigan
extending one mile out from the shoreline — to the Illinois Central
Railroad. In 1873, the Legislature changed its mind and repealed the
1869 grant. The State of Illinois sued to quit title. The Court while
accepting the stand of the State of Illinois held that the title of the State
in the land in dispute was a title different in character from that which
the State held in lands intended for sale. It was different from the title
which the United States held in public lands which were open to pre-
emption and sale. It was a title held in trust — for the people of the
State that they may enjoy the navigation of the water, carry on
commerce over them and have liberty of fishing therein free from
obstruction or interference of private parties. The abdication of the
general control of the State over lands in dispute was not consistent
with the exercise of the trust which required the Government of the
State to preserve such waters for the use of the public. According to
Professor Sax the Court in Illinois Central [146 US 387 : 36 L Ed 1018
(1892)] “articulated a principle that has become the central substantive
thought in public trust litigation. When a State holds a resource which is
available for the free use of the general public, a court will look with
considerable scepticism upon any governmental conduct which is
calculated either to relocate that resource to more restricted uses or to
subject public uses to the self-interest of private parties”.
xxx xxx xxx
32. We may at this stage refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court
of California in National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine
County [33 Cal 3d 419] . The case is popularly known as “the Mono Lake
case”. Mono Lake is the second largest lake in California. The lake is
saline. It contains no fish but supports a large population of brine
shrimp which feed vast numbers of nesting and migrating birds. Islands
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
29
in the lake protect a large breeding colony of California gulls, and the
lake itself serves as a haven on the migration route for thousands of
birds. Towers and spires of tura (sic) on the north and south shores are
matters of geological interest and a tourist attraction. In 1940, the
Division of Water Resources granted the Department of Water and
Power of the City of Los Angeles a permit to appropriate virtually the
entire flow of 4 of the 5 streams flowing into the lake. As a result of
these diversions, the level of the lake dropped, the surface area
diminished, the gulls were abandoning the lake and the scenic beauty
and the ecological values of Mono Lake were imperilled. The plaintiffs
environmentalist — using the public trust doctrine — filed a law suit
against Los Angeles Water Diversions. The case eventually came to the
California Supreme Court, on a Federal Trial Judge's request for
clarification of the State's public trust doctrine. The Court explained the
concept of public trust doctrine in the following words:
“‘By the law of nature these things are common to
mankind — the air, running water, the sea and consequently
the shores of the sea.’ (Institutes of Justinian 2.1.1) From this
origin in Roman law, the English common law evolved the
concept of the public trust, under which the sovereign owns
‘all of its navigable waterways and the lands lying beneath
them as trustee of a public trust for the benefit of the
people”.
The Court explained the purpose of the public trust as under:
“The objective of the public trust has evolved in tandem
with the changing public perception of the values and uses of
waterways. As we observed in Marks v. Whitney [6 Cal 3d
251] , ‘[public trust easements (were) traditionally defined in
terms of navigation, commerce and fisheries. They have been
held to include the right to fish, hunt, bathe, swim, to use for
boating and general recreation purposes the navigable waters
of the State, and to use the bottom of the navigable waters for
anchoring, standing, or other purposes. We went on, however,
to hold that the traditional triad of uses — navigation,
commerce and fishing — did not limit the public interest in
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
30
the trustres. In language of special importance to the present
setting, we stated that ‘[t]he public uses to which tidelands
are subject are sufficiently flexible to encompass changing
public needs. In administering the trust the State is not
burdened with an outmoded classification favouring one mode
of utilization over another. There is a growing public
recognition that one of the important public uses of the
tidelands — a use encompassed within the tidelands trust —
is the preservation of those lands in their natural state, so
that they may serve as ecological units for scientific study, as
open space, and as environments which provide food and
habitat for birds and marine life, and which favourably affect
the scenery and climate of the area.’
Mono Lake is a navigable waterway. It supports a small
local industry which harvests brine shrimp for sale as fish
food, which endeavour probably qualifies the lake as a
‘fishery’ under the traditional public trust cases. The principal
values plaintiffs seek to protect, however, are recreational
and ecological — the scenic views of the lake and its shore,
the purity of the air, and the use of the lake for nesting and
feeding by birds. Under Marks v. Whitney [6 Cal 3d 251] , it is
clear that protection of these values is among the purposes of
the public trust.”
The Court summed up the powers of the State as trustee in the following
words:
“Thus, the public trust is more than an affirmation of
State power to use public property for public purposes. It is
an affirmation of the duty of the State to protect the people's
common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands and
tidelands, surrendering that right of protection only in rare
cases when the abandonment of that right is consistent with
the purposes of the trust….”
The Supreme Court of California, inter alia, reached the following conclusion:
“The State has an affirmative duty to take the public trust
into account in the planning and allocation of water
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
31
resources, and to protect public trust uses whenever feasible.
Just as the history of this State shows that appropriation may
be necessary for efficient use of water despite unavoidable
harm to public trust values, it demonstrates that an
appropriative water rights system administered without
consideration of the public trust may cause unnecessary and
unjustified harm to trust interests. (See Johnson, 14 U.C.
Davis L. Rev. 233, 256-57/; Robie, Some Reflections on
Environmental Considerations in Water Rights
Administration, 2 Ecology L.Q. 695, 710-711 (1972);
Comment, 33 Hastings L.J. 653, 654.) As a matter of practical
necessity the State may have to approve appropriations
despite foreseeable harm to public trust uses. In so doing,
however, the State must bear in mind its duty as trustee to
consider the effect of the taking on the public trust (see
United Plainsmen v. N.D. State Water Cons. Comm'n [247
NW 2d 457 (ND 1976)] at pp. 462-463, and to preserve, so
far as consistent with the public interest, the uses protected
by the trust.”
The Court finally came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs could rely on the
public trust doctrine in seeking reconsideration of the allocation of the
waters of the Mono basin.
xxx xxx xxx
34. Our legal system — based on English common law — includes the
public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee
of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and
enjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of the sea-shore, running
waters, airs, forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a trustee is
under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant
for public use cannot be converted into private ownership.
35. We are fully aware that the issues presented in this case illustrate the
classic struggle between those members of the public who would preserve
our rivers, forests, parks and open lands in their pristine purity and those
charged with administrative responsibilities who, under the pressures of
the changing needs of an increasingly complex society, find it necessary to
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
32
encroach to some extent upon open lands heretofore considered inviolate to
change. The resolution of this conflict in any given case is for the
legislature and not the courts. If there is a law made by Parliament or the
State Legislatures the courts can serve as an instrument of determining
legislative intent in the exercise of its powers of judicial review under the
Constitution. But in the absence of any legislation, the executive acting
under the doctrine of public trust cannot abdicate the natural resources and
convert them into private ownership, or for commercial use. The aesthetic
use and the pristine glory of the natural resources, the environment and the
ecosystems of our country cannot be permitted to be eroded for private,
commercial or any other use unless the courts find it necessary, in good
faith, for the public good and in public interest to encroach upon the said
resources.”
(Underline supplied)
The Apex Court in M.C.Mehta v. Union of India and Others
[(2004) 12 SCC 118] has considered the rival claims of right to
enjoyment of pollution free water and air are guaranteed by the
Constitution and the need for development activity and held that a
balance has to be struck between development and protection of the
environment and in case of doubt, environmental concern takes
precedence over economic interest. Paragraphs 45, 46, 47 and 48 of
the above said judgment are extracted below:
“45. The natural sources of air, water and soil cannot be utilized if the
utilization results in irreversible damage to environments. There has been
accelerated degradation of environment primarily on account of lack of
effective enforcement of environmental laws and non-compliance of the
statutory norms. This Court has repeatedly said that the right to live is a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the
right to of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
33
life. (See Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar[AIR 1991 SC 420].
46. Further, by Forty-second Constitutional Amendment, Article 48-A was
inserted in the Constitution in Part IV stipulating that the State shall
endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the
forest and wildlife of the country. Article 51A, inter alia, provides that it
shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the
natural environment including forest, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have
compassion for living creatures. Article 47 which provides that it shall be
the duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of
living and to improve public health is also relevant in this connection. The
most vital necessities, namely, air, water and soil, having regard to right of
life under Article 21 cannot be permitted to be misused and polluted so as
to reduce the quality of life of others. Having regard to the right of the
community at large it is permissible to encourage the participation of
Amicus Curiae, the appointment of experts and the appointments of
monitory committees. The approach of the Court has to be liberal towards
ensuring social justice and protection of human rights. In M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India[(1987) 4 SCC 463], this Court held that life, public health
and ecology has priority over unemployment and loss of revenue. The
definition of 'sustainable development' which Brundtland gave more than 3
decades back still holds good. The phrase covers the development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the
future generation to meet their own needs. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v.
Union of India & Ors . [(2000) 10 SCC 664], this Court observed that
sustainable development means the type or extent of development that can
take place and which can be sustained by nature/ecology with or without
mitigation. In these matters, the required standard now is that the risk of
harm to the environment or to human health is to be decided in public
interest, according to a "reasonable person's " test. [See Chairman Barton :
The Status of the Precautionary Principle in Australia : (Vol. 22) (1998)
(Harv. Envtt. Law Review, p. 509 at p.549-A) as in AP Pollution Control
Board vs. Prof.M.V. Nayudu (Retd) & Ors [(1999) 2 SCC 718].
47. The mining operation is hazardous in nature. It impairs ecology and
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
34
people's right of natural resources. The entire process of setting up and
functioning of mining operation require utmost good faith and honesty on
the part of the intending entrepreneur. For carrying on any mining activity
close to township which has tendency to degrade environment and are
likely to effect air, water and soil and impair the quality of life of
inhabitants of the area, there would be greater responsibility on the part
of the entrepreneur. The fullest disclosures including the potential for
increased burdens on the environment consequent upon possible increase
in the quantum and degree of pollution, has to be made at the outset so
that public and all those concerned including authorities may decide
whether the permission can at all be granted for carrying on mining
activity. The regulatory authorities have to act with utmost care in
ensuring compliance of safeguards, norms and standards to be observed
by such entrepreneurs. When questioned, the regulatory authorities have
to show that the said authorities acted in the manner enjoined upon them.
Where the regulatory authorities, either connive or act negligently by not
taking prompt action to prevent, avoid or control the damage to
environment, natural resources and peoples' life, health and property, the
principles of accountability for restoration and compensation have to be
applied.
48. Development and the protection of environments are not enemies. If
without degrading the environment or minimising adverse effects
thereupon by applying stringent safeguards, it is possible to carry on
development activity applying the principles of sustainable development,
in that eventuality, the development has to go on because one cannot lose
sight of the need for development of industries, irrigation resources and
power projects etc. including the need to improve employment
opportunities and the generation of revenue. A balance has to be struck.
We may note that to stall fast the depletion of forest, series of orders have
been passed by this Court in T.N. Godavarman's case regulating the felling
of trees in all the forests in the country. Principle 15 of Rio Conference of
1992 relating to the applicability of precautionary principle which
stipulates that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage,
lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for proposing
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
35
effective measures to prevent environmental degradation is also required
to be kept in view. In such matters, many a times, the option to be adopted
is not very easy or in a straight jacket. If an activity is allowed to go ahead,
there may be irreparable damage to the environment and if it is stopped,
there may be irreparable damage to economic interest. In case of doubt,
however, protection of environment would have precedenc e over the
economic interest. Precautionary principle requires anticipatory action to
be taken to prevent harm. The harm can be prevented even on a
reasonable suspicion. It is not always necessary that there should be direct
evidence of harm to the environment.”
(Underline supplied)
The Apex Court in the judgment cited Supra has also held that the
harm to the environment could be prevented even on a reasonable
suspicion and it is always not necessary that there should be direct
evidence of harm to the environment.
16. Since Vagamon is a land of pristine beauty and a hot spot
for biodiversity and is a major tourist destination of the country, a
specific query was put to the Government to explain the stand of the
Government in such matters, the learned Government Pleader has
come up with instructions from the Government, which has been
produced along with a memo dated 25.11.2025, wherein the
Government in the Revenue Department has considered the matter
and has called for a report from the land revenue commissioner and it
was reported that as per the vigilance report of the Central Vigilance
Zone Deputy Collector, submitted as per No.976/V2/IDY/2020 dated
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
36
01.01.2021, if quarrying is done in the said area, there will be a
threat to the life and property of the local people, agriculture, and
domestic animals affecting the environmental stability of the region
and it will also pose a threat to the transportation through Kaichundi-
Upputhara road and Kaichundi-Kottamala Road and it is reported that
the Government in the Revenue Department endorses the above
report and since the Vagamon area is a tourist hotspot, the opinion of
the Environment Department and Tourism Department is also
necessary and their remarks is also obtained. True copy of the
communication dated 03.11.2025 produced along with memo is
extracted below:
“GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Revenue (PA) Department
03-11-2025,Thiruvananthapuram
No. PA1/36/2025-REV Phone: 0471 251 8103
E-mail: [email protected]
From
Secretary to Government
To
Advocate General
Kerala, Ernakulam
Sir,
Sub: Revenue Department- WP(C) No. 9102/2022 filed by
Karuvakunnel Enterprises before the Hon'ble High Court
of Kerala- Government view forwarding- reg
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
37
Ref: 1..WP(C) No. 9102/2022 filed by Karuvakunnel Enterprises
before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala
2.Letter no. H4-WPC No. 9102/2022 dated 27.10.2025 from
AG Office.
3. letter no. LR/2134/2025-LR(K3) dt 1.11.2025, of the
Land Revenue Commissioner.
Inviting attention to the reference cited, | am to inform you the
following instructions in respect of the WP(C) No. 9102/2022 filed by
Karuvakunnel Enterprises before the Hon'ble High Court.
The petitioner, Karuvakunnel Enterprise, represented by its
Managing Partner, Paul Mathew, filed this petition with a prayer to quash
the NOC given to Sri, Anish Abraham, for obtaining a quarrying lease for
an extent of 4.990 hectares of puramboke land comprised in survey no.
729/pt of Vagamon village in Peermade Taluk by District Collector, Idukki.
Since the Hon'ble Court has expressed serious apprehension in
respect of the granting of NOC /Permissions to conduct quarrying
operations in Vagamon and Munnar area, which are admittedly tourism
hot spots of Kerala and the Government's view on this matter has been
called for by the Hon'ble Court, Government have examined the matter in
detail through the Land Revenue Commissioner.
The Land Revenue Commissioner has reported that as per the
vigilance report of the Central Zone Vigilance Deputy Collector submitted
vide No. 976/V2/IDY/2020 dated 01.01.2021, if quarrying is done in the
said area, there will be a threat to the life and property of the local
people, agriculture, and domestic animals, affecting the environmental
stability of the region. It also poses a threat to the transportation through
Kaichundi-Upputhara Road and Kaichundi-Kottamala Road.
Therefore, Government in Revenue Dept is also endorse the
above report. Further it is also to inform that since the Vagamon area is a
tourist hotspot, the opinion of the Environment Department and Tourism
Department also seems necessary in the matter. Therefore after obtaining
their remarks detailed instructions will be furnished separately.
In the circumstances, based on the above details, | am directed
to request you to take necessary steps to defend the case properly for and
on behalf of the Government, hearing.”
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
38
(Underline supplied)
The learned Government pleader has also produced copy of the
report submitted by the Director, Department of Tourism, Kerala,
wherein it is reported as follows:
“Kind attention is invited. With reference to the
WP(C)No.9102/20222/H4 filed by Karuvakkunnel Enterprises the following
instructions regrading the stand of Government in permitting mining
operations in the Vagamon area- a major tourism hotspots of Kerala are
detailed below,
Vagamon is a popular tourist destination in Idukki District of Kerala.
Mining in this area causes serious threat to the local ecosystem and
tourism industry as detailed below,
Environmental Destruction: Mining can lead to deforestation, soil erosion,
and water pollution, causing irreversible damage to the fragile ecosystem
of Vagamon. The destruction of natural habitats can also lead to the loss of
biodiversity, including endemic and rare plant species.
Threat to tourism: Mining will destroy the natural beauty of Vagamon and
deter tourists from visiting the area. The bald hills, meadows, and
waterfalls of the area are major attractions that are at risk of being
irreversibly damaged by mining activities.
Impact on the local community: Mining will also affect the local community,
potentially displacing residents and disrupting their livelihoods. It will also
have a significant impact on the tourism industry, which provides
employment opportunities to the locals.
Need for Conservation: In order to protect the ecosystem and tourism
industry of Vagamon, it is essential to adopt sustainable practices and
conservation measures.
Therefore, it is requested that no further mining be allowed in the
Vagamon area, which contributes greatly to the tourism sector of Kerala.”
(Underline supplied)
17. From the above, it is without any doubt that the stand of
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
39
the Government is that if quarrying is done in the said area there
will be a threat to the life and property of the local people,
agriculture, and domestic animals affecting the environmental
stability of the region and that the Government in the Revenue
Department endorses the report of the Land Revenue
Commissioner in this regard. The Government, taking note of the
fact that Vagamon area is a tourist hotspot, the opinion of the
Environment Department and Tourism Department, were also
called for and the Tourism Department has submitted a report,
which is extracted above, requesting that no further mining be
allowed in the Vagamon area, which contributes greatly to the
tourism sector of Kerala.
In light of the above facts and circumstances, there will be a
further direction to the Government (respondents 1 and 2 in
WP(C)No.40095 of 2018) to finalise the proceedings for issuing
appropriate order banning any kind of quarrying operation in
Vagamon area, in the light of the proceedings dated 03.11.2025
produced along with a memo dated 25.11.2025. Necessary orders
in this regard shall be issued by the Government by respondents 1
and 2 in WP(C)No.40095 of 2018 without any delay, at any rate
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
40
within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of
copy of the judgment. Till a decision is taken as directed above,
the respondents 1 to 5 in WP(C)No.40095 of 2018 shall see that
no further permission for mining shall be granted in Vagamon
area.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sm/
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
41
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 40095 OF 2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 2/11/2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 14/12/2017.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER DATED, 6/12/2017 TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 1/3/2018 SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TALUK
SURVEYOR, PEERMEDU TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
DATED 5/3/2018.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NO-OBJECTION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 10/4/2018.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 2/11/2017.
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
42
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 13906 OF 2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR NOC
DTD.02.11.2017 IN RESPECT OF 5 HECTARES.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR NOC
DTD.02.11.2017 IN RESPECT OF 10 HECTARES.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.14.12.2017
OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT 2005.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.01.03.2018
OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REPORT OBTAINED UNDER RTI
ACT ON 05.03.2018.
EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF SKETCH APPENDED TO EXT.P5
OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT ON 05.03.2018.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF FILE NO.DCIDK/1349/2018-E9
DTD.20.03.2018 AND 21.03.2018 OBTAINED
UNDER RTI ACT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION
DTD.06.12.2017 OF 5TH RESPONDENT OBTAINED
UNDER RTI ACT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION
DTD.17.03.2018 SUBMITTED BY 5TH
RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF NOC DTD.10.04.2018 ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER.
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
43
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 38933 OF 2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
1.2.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NON - OBJECTION
CERTIFICATE DATED 10.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
15.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT.
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
44
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 12096 OF 2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 10.4.2018
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF INTENT DATED
15.9.2018
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEAC,
DATED 13TH AND 14TH JANUARY, 2020
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.6.2020
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DATED 28.8.2020
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
GRANTED BY THE SEIAA, DATED 19.4.2021
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE LOCAL
GRAMA PANCHAYAT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
CONSENT OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
DATED 3.5.2021
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENSE ISSUED
BY THE EXPLOSIVE DEPARTMENT DATED
26.4.2021
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE WHATS APP NOTICE ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CANCELING EXT P4.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.6.2020
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT.6/1/2022
Exhibit P16 True copy of the letter issued by the
government dated 08/02/2022
Exhibit P15 True copy of the letter issued from the
office of the 2 nd respondent, dated 24-
3-2022 to the 1 st respondent
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
45
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 9102 OF 2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED, 2-11-2017
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 6TH
RESPONDENT DATED, 14-12-2017
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER DATED, 6-12-2017
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 6TH
RESPONDENT DATED, 1-3-2018
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TALUK
SURVEYOR, PEERMEDU TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT
DATED, 5-3-2018
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NO-OBJECTION
CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED, 10-4-2018
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED, 2-11-2017
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED
BY THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED, 10-12-2018
IN W.P.(C)NO.40095/2018
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED
BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.
(C)NO.13906/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES
DATED, 17-12-2018
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT DATED, 16-2-2019
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AS G.O.
(MS)NO.28/2021/RD DATED, 28-1-2021
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAPAL DISTRIBUTION
LIST OF E9 LIST OF COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI
FROM 2-11-2017 TO 10-12-2017
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THIS RESPONDENT, OBTAINED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF RTI ACT, 2005 DATED
02/11/2017
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
46
Exhibit R8(B) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THIS RESPONDENT, OBTAINED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF RTI ACT, 2005 DATED
02/11/2017
Exhibit R8(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 14/12/2017,
SUBMITTED BY THE TAHSILDAR, PEERUMEDU TO
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI
Exhibit R8(D) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER, OBTAINED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF RTI ACT, 2005 DATED
06/12/207
Exhibit R8(E) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER, OBTAINED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF RTI ACT, 2005 DATED
06/12/207
Exhibit R8(F) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TAHSILDAR
DATED 01/03/2018
Exhibit R8(G) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 05/03/2018
SUBMITTED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR
Exhibit R8(H) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
17/03/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit R8(I) TRUE COPY OF THE FILE NOTES WITH RESPECT
TO THE HEARING OBTAINED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE RTI ACT
Exhibit R8(J) TRUE COPY OF THE NOC DATED 10/04/2018
ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY
Exhibit R8(K) TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTES WITH
RESPECT TO THE HEARING OBTAINED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF RTI ACT
Exhibit R8(L) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
TAHSILDAR
Exhibit R8(M) TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE
TAHSILDAR
Exhibit R8(N) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 11/12/2018 OBTAINED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RTI ACT
Exhibit R8(O) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PARTNER OF THE PETITIONER DATED
10/12/21018
Exhibit R8(P) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FORWARDING
EXHIBIT-R8(O) BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
2026:KER:17562
W.P.(C). Nos.40095, 13906 & 38933 of 2018,
12096 of 2021 and 9102 of 2022
: :
47
Exhibit R8(Q) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PARTNER OF THE PETITIONER DATED
05/11/2018
Exhibit R8(R) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FORWARDING
EXHIBIT-R8(Q) BY TH DISTRICT COLLECTOR
Exhibit R8(S) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE
ELAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH FOR THE PERIOD
FROM 22/07/2021 TO 31/03/2023
Exhibit R8(T) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE
ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
Exhibit R8(U) TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENCE ISSUED
BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY
Exhibit R8(V) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE GRANTED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19/04/2021