Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules| Can't Insist On Submission Of Scheme Of Mining Before Expiry Of Approved Mining Plan: High Court
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that the Scheme of Mining only ought to be submitted 120 days before the expiry of the first five-year period for which the Mining Plan was approved on the last occasion as per Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015.Justice N. Nagaresh observed that when the language of Rule 66 is clear, there is no necessity to import the definition of the term...
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that the Scheme of Mining only ought to be submitted 120 days before the expiry of the first five-year period for which the Mining Plan was approved on the last occasion as per Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015.
Justice N. Nagaresh observed that when the language of Rule 66 is clear, there is no necessity to import the definition of the term 'year' from the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, which has no application to minor minerals.
"When the language of Rule 66 is clear, there is no necessity to import the definition of the term 'year' from the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017, which has no application to minor minerals, whose application is specifically excluded as per Rule 2(iii) of the Act."
The Petitioner-Company, who holds a quarry licence, uploaded their application for issuance of Movement Permit but found that access was denied. The Portal indicated that "no mining scheme is found for the concession for the current financial year (2022- 2023)", despite the fact that the existing Mining Plan was due for review only on 25.07.2023.
Therefore the Writ Petition was filed through Advocate Philip J Vettickattu seeking a declaration that the petitioner is liable to submit the Scheme of Mining only 120 days before the expiry of five years reckoning from 26.07.2018 and to direct the respondents not to insist on submission of Scheme of Mining before the due date.
Senior Government Pleader, Advocate Surya Binoy, submitted that the composite Mining Plan held by the petitioner is not valid for the financial year 2022-23 as the mining plan was approved in the year 2018, and the movement permit was issued during the financial year 2017-18; therefore the financial year 2017-18 has to be considered as the first year, and by 2021-22, the 5th year is completed. Since the period of five years is complete, a Scheme of Mining has to be submitted by the petitioner afresh. Furthermore, it was argued that the impugned direction was in tune with the provisions of the Minor and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,1957.
The Court referring to Rule 66 and 67 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, observed that there is no indication whatsoever in the rule that the Mining Plan should cover the entire Financial Year. The rule does not even contemplate a Mining Plan covering any financial year, and the only requirement of Rule 67(1) is that every mining plan duly approved under the rules shall be valid for the entire duration of the lease.
The Court further observed that even if the argument raised by the respondents is accepted, assuming that the five-year period prescribed for the reviewed Scheme of Mining under Rule 67(2) is five Financial Years, even then, the said Financial Year period cannot be made applicable to the duration of the first Mining Plan approved under Rule 66.
Thereby, the Court disposed of the writ petition, declaring that the petitioner is liable to submit Scheme of Mining only 120 days before the expiry of five years reckoning from 26.07.2018 and directed the respondents not to insist on submission of Scheme of Mining before the due date.
Also directed the respondent to give access to the petitioner to the Portal KOMPAS to upload the application for Movement Permit and issue the same.
Case Title: Sahara Granites v. District Geologist and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 401