Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Recently, The Kerala high court observed that authorities should not grant or renew a quarrying lease to a person who owes amounts to the government, even if the rules against such grants or renewals do not contain an express prohibition. A single bench comprising Justice PB Suresh Kumar also urged the Government to consider appropriate amendments to the Rules to avoid granting quarrying leases to individuals who owe the government money. Even if the recovery of money remains subject to the interim orders of the court, the competent authority must, at the time of renewal or the new grant of a quarrying lease, insist on the payment of the full dues.
This important observation was made by the bench in the Palakkattu Granite Industries Ltd v State of Kerala case. The petitioner lodged a written petition in the High Court challenging a notice of demand issued by the Director of Mining and Geology calling on the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5.68 crores in respect of the price, royalty, and other dues in respect of the granite stones unlawfully quarried by the petitioner beyond the bounds of the land on which the quarrying lease had been secured. The Court observed that there would be no justification for interfering with the demand notice by exercising the powers conferred to in Article 226 of the Constitution.
In 2000, the first notice of claim against the applicant was issued by the District Geologist for the recovery of Rs 5.68 Crores. The notice of demand was finally set aside on the basis that the geologist had no authority to issue the same. In 2012, the Director of Mining and Geology subsequently issued a demand notice for the same sum of Rs 5,68 crores. In 2019, under the Revenue Recovery Act, Tahsildar discharged a recovery notice with respect to the demand raised by the Director of Mining and Geology. This led to the petitioner addressing the High Court. The Court expressed concern that no steps were taken until 2018 to reclaim such a high amount. Moreover, the judge observed that natural resources represent public property and that the State is empowered to administer such resources only by ensuring that the allocation is not adverse to the public interest.
86540
103860
630
114
59824