Minerals Rules | Project Proponent Seeking Quarrying Permit Must Have Explosives License, Can't Use Another's License: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has recently held that a project proponent seeking quarrying permit or lease as per the Kerala Minor Minerals Rules must obtain an explosive licence in their own name and they cannot use the licence belonging to another. It also clarified that the practice of incorporating the details of another person's property into the licence granted by way of amendment is illegal.Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed:“The conclusion from the above discussions and findings is that a project proponent seeking a quarrying permit or lease under Rule 8 or Rule 33 of the KMMC Rules must obtain an explosives licence in their own name to secure the quarrying permit or lease. In other words, a project proponent cannot use an explosives licence obtained by someone else.”The 7th respondent is the project proponent who wished to establish a quarry near the houses of the petitioners. On preferring an application, a letter of intent as per the KMMC Rules was given by the Geology department with a condition that the 7th respondent must produce an explosive licence. 8th respondent is the holder of an explosive licence with permit to use them in another premises (magazine) and he submitted an application to the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives to use them in 7th respondent's quarry. The said application was allowed and the 7th and 8th respondents entered into an agreement to use the latter's licence to carry out blasting operations in the former's quarry.The writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the director of mining and geology and the geologist not to grant permission to the 7th respondent for conducting the quarry until he produced an explosives licence in his own name.The Court referred to Rules 7, 101, 102 and 103 of the Explosives Rules, which outline the procedure to be followed for obtaining a valid explosive licence. This includes the conduct of the inspection of the site in which the explosives will be used and subjective satisfaction of the authority.It also looked into Rule 97, which states that in order to conduct blasting operations in mines, the provisions and Regulations under the Mines Act must be complied with. Looking through Section 57(i) of the Mines Act, the Court found that that the Rules under it shall be subject to the Explosives Act and Rules. Therefore, it observed that the provisions of the Mines Act cannot override the site inspection requirement in the Explosives Rules.The Court further observed:“details about the quarrying site and its possession are also relevant considerations for the authority during the enquiry under Rule 103(3) of the Explosives Rules. If no enquiry regarding the quarry site is required, authorities might issue the licence without considering adverse circumstances associated with the site…If a quarry site belonging to one individual is included in another person's LE-3 licence without any enquiry being conducted, that property will effectively be excluded from the enquiry. Such exclusion is not aligned with the scheme of the Explosives Rules concerning issuance of licences for the possession of explosives for use…The fact that Rule 107 of the Explosives Rules does not specify where explosives are to be used, and that the LE - 3 licence does not include a column for the quarry site, cannot serve as a reason to avoid an enquiry at the quarry site by the District Magistrate…Moreover, the explosives licence confers a personal right that cannot be transferred or leased to another person...”Coming back to the facts of the present case, the Court opined that the practice undertaken by the respondents 7 and 8 by incorporating the former's property details into the latter's licence by way of amendment is illegal. It also found that such a practice is unsupported by statutory provision and would bypass statutory requirements.Thus, it allowed the writ petition and directed that permission for quarry should not be granted until the 7th respondent obtains explosive licence in own name. It also quashed the agreement between respondents 7 and 8.Case No: WP(C) No. 37392/2023Case Title: Jaice John and Ors. v. The Director of Mining and Geology and Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 609Counsel for the petitioners: Liji J. Vadakedom, Tom E. Jacob, Rexy Elizabeth Thomas, Athul V. VadakkedomCounsel for the respondents: B.S. Syamanthak, Mini Gopinath – Senior Panel Counsel, K.S. Arun Kumar, Jawahar Jose, T.C. Krishna – Senior Panel Counsel, Renjith Thampan (Sr.), Safeer Bawa A.S.Click to Read/Download Judgment

Minerals Rules | Project Proponent Seeking Quarrying Permit Must Have Explosives License, Can't Use Another's License: Kerala High Court

K. Salma Jennath

Tags