No Vested Right Over Application Seeking NOC Granting Lease For Mining Minerals, Must Be Considered Based On Existing Rules: Kerala High Court

In this case, the application for NOC was filed in 2019 and it was rejected after a delay of four years by relying upon 2021 guidelines issued by the government. The Court held that even though the application was pending and there was a delay, it could not grant NOC without considering the guidelines in the absence of any express provisions.

By relying upon the Apex Court decisions in State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone and Others (1981) and State of Rajasthan and Others v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat (2023), Justice Murali Purushothaman dismissed the plea, and observed thus:

“No one has a vested right to the grant of lease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for grant of lease to be dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions...in the absence of any vested right, the application has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force as on the date of disposal of the application despite the fact that there is long delay since the making of the application.”

The petitioner approached the District Collector with an application in 2019 for the issuance of NOC for quarrying granite from revenue puramboke land. In 2021, the Government issued guidelines for granting NOC for mining minerals. Based on the notification, the District Collector rejected the NOC and stated that the petitioner's application could only be considered based on the new guidelines.

The counsels for the petitioner submitted that an application submitted in 2019 cannot be rejected based on guidelines issued by the government in 2021. It was argued that the application has to be considered based on the law prevailing at the time of submitting the application. Further, it was submitted that the District Collector cannot take advantage of the inexplicable delay caused by him in considering the application.

On the other hand, Senior Government Pleader Bimal K Nath submitted that the petitioner cannot claim any vested right and the mere filing of NOC does not create any indefeasible right. It was also argued that the guidelines were not challenged and were issued to bring transparency in granting NOC for mining minerals. He also submitted that the petitioner had not approached the Court regarding the delay in considering his application.

Relying upon earlier decisions, the Court held that the petitioner cannot seek a direction for consideration of his NOC without adhering to the guidelines issued by the government.

The Court stated that the application of the petitioner for NOC has to be considered in light of the guidelines issued by the government even though his application was pending and there was an inordinate delay on the part of the District Collector. It stated that the petitioner had not approached the Court seeking an early consideration of his application during its pendency and had also not challenged the guidelines issued by the government.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition and held that the petitioner has no vested right to seek consideration of his application for granting NOC without applying the guidelines issued by the government.

Counsels for the petitioner: Advocates Enoch David Simon Joel, S Sreedev, Rony Jose, Leo Lukose, Karol Mathews Sebastian Alencherry, Derick Mathai Saji, Karan Scaria Abraham

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 14

Case title: A H Sheriff v State of Kerala

Case number: WP(C) NO. 33324 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment