Case Meta

Citation: 2025 KER 66412

Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Bench: Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath

Date of Judgment: 09 September 2025

Case No.: WP(C) No. 37392 of 2023

Parties: Jaice John & Ors. (Petitioners) v. Director of Mining and Geology & Ors. (Respondents)

Disposition: Writ petition allowed; PESO licence (LE-3) “permission” to use explosives at 7th respondent’s quarry quashed to that extent; quarry permit to be withheld until the project proponent obtains an explosives licence in his own name.

Reportability: “C.R.” (Case Reportable)

Introduction

This judgment addresses a recurring regulatory dilemma in quarry operations: whether a quarry proponent may lawfully rely on another entity’s explosives licence (LE‑3) — extended by “including” the proponent’s quarry site — to satisfy the explosives licensing requirement embedded in the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (KMMC Rules). The Kerala High Court emphatically answers “no.”

At the core lies a conflict between administrative practice and statutory prescription. The 7th respondent (the quarry proponent) possessed a Letter of Intent (LoI) under Rule 8 of the KMMC Rules, which required production of an explosives licence “for extracting minerals from the specified area as per the approved mining plan.” Instead of obtaining an explosives licence in his own name, the 7th respondent engaged the 8th respondent, a holder of an LE‑3 licence for a magazine at another location, and sought to have the 7th respondent’s quarry site “included” for use under that licence. Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO) acknowledged this inclusion as a standard practice, purportedly by recording the licensee’s intimation.

Neighbouring residents (the petitioners) challenged this arrangement, contending that the KMMC Rules and the Explosives Rules, 2008, require the quarry proponent himself to obtain the necessary explosives licence after proper enquiry and No Objection Certificate (NOC) procedures, thereby ensuring public safety and site-specific scrutiny. The Director of Mining and Geology supported the petitioners, while the Geologist referred to a changed departmental approach influenced by PESO. PESO defended the practice as an administrative acknowledgment, and the 7th and 8th respondents argued that the Mines Act governs blasting and that the Explosives Rules focus on the magazine, not the quarry.

The decision thus grapples with the statutory scheme under the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008, the Mines Act, 1952, and the KMMC Rules, to determine whether “third‑party LE‑3 site inclusion” can lawfully stand in for a proponent‑held explosives licence.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Court held that a quarry proponent seeking a quarrying permit/lease under the KMMC Rules must obtain an explosives licence in his own name; a proponent cannot rely on an explosives licence held by a third party.
• Explosives licensing is governed by the Explosives Act, 1884 and Explosives Rules, 2008. The Mines Act, 1952 and its regulations do not displace or dilute the site‑specific enquiries mandated under the Explosives Rules.
• Rule 101–103 procedures, read with Form AE‑12 (Schedule V), require the District Magistrate’s NOC following enquiry that includes the site where explosives will be used (i.e., the quarry). Column 5 of Form AE‑12 specifically requires details of the “site where explosives will be used.”
• PESO’s practice of acknowledging an “inclusion” of a quarry site belonging to one person into another’s LE‑3 licence lacks statutory basis and improperly circumvents the mandatory NOC and enquiry scheme. Explosives licences are personal and non‑transferable.
• Ext. P4 (the existing LE‑3 licence of the 8th respondent) is quashed to the extent it authorised use of explosives at the 7th respondent’s quarry. Authorities are restrained from granting quarrying permission to the 7th respondent unless and until he produces an explosives licence issued in his own name.

Detailed Analysis

A. Statutory Framework and the Court’s Synthesis

• KMMC Rules, 2015 (Rules 8, 9, 33): An LoI is issued after inspection (Rule 8). A quarrying permit is issued only upon production of all statutory licences and clearances (Rule 9(2)). The LoI here (Ext. P3) required an explosives licence “for extraction from the specified area as per the approved mining plan.”
• Explosives Act, 1884 and Explosives Rules, 2008:
  • Rule 7: No person shall possess explosives for use unless authorised or licensed.
  • Rules 101–103: Licence for use requires prior approval and a NOC. The District Magistrate must conduct an enquiry, including a public notice (Rule 103(3)(a)), verifying background, lawful site possession, genuineness, public interest, and any other matters deemed necessary.
  • Form AE‑12, Column 5 (Schedule V): When a licence is “for possession for use,” the applicant must provide details of the site where explosives will be used — confirming that use‑site scrutiny is integral to the NOC process.
  • Rules 104–105: Construction and subsequent application to PESO for licensing follow the NOC.
  • Rules 107, 109 and 102(2)(c): While licences (including LE‑3) may be amended, amendments that implicate matters requiring NOC‑enquiry under Rule 103 cannot be made without such enquiry.
  • Personal nature of licence: Licences confer a personal right; they are not transferable or leasable as a device to overcome statutory checks.
• Mines Act, 1952 and Rule 97 of the Explosives Rules: Blasting in mines must also comply with the Mines Act and its regulations. However, Section 57(i) of the Mines Act subordinates such rules to the Explosives Act and Rules. Hence, Mines Act compliance does not negate the licensing, NOC, and site‑enquiry requirements under the Explosives Rules.

B. Precedents and Authorities Relied Upon

• Rajan K. v. Additional District Magistrate, 2021 (5) KLT 454: The Court underscored the breadth of the District Magistrate’s discretion in NOC enquiries, including considering security threats (e.g., Maoist presence) to refuse permission for magazine/quarry operations. This precedent fortifies the High Court’s position that the NOC enquiry is not a mere distance‑rule checklist but a holistic, site‑specific, public‑interest evaluation.
• Statutory primacy: The judgment principally draws on statutory provisions rather than a multitude of precedents, reinforcing that the answer lies in the plain structure of the Explosives Rules read with the KMMC Rules.

C. Rejection of Respondents’ Arguments

• “Blasting is governed by the Mines Act, not Explosives Rules” (7th respondent’s contention): The Court held this is unsustainable. Rule 97 of the Explosives Rules requires compliance with the Mines Act in addition to, not in derogation of, the Explosives Act/Rules. Section 57(i) of the Mines Act itself defers to the Explosives framework.
• “NOC only concerns the magazine, not the quarry use‑site” (PESO/7th respondent): Form AE‑12, Column 5 expressly requires details of the “site where explosives will be used” when the licence is “for possession for use.” Rule 103(3) authorises the District Magistrate to enquire into any matter deemed necessary. Hence, the quarry site must be scrutinised during NOC proceedings.
• “LE‑3 (Rule 107) does not specify the use‑site”: The Court explained that the site enquiry is anchored in Rule 103 and reflected in the NOC; once the NOC embeds that outcome, PESO’s licensing under Rule 107 proceeds on that foundation. The absence of a “quarry site” field on the LE‑3 format does not obviate the mandatory NOC enquiry into the use‑site.
• “Amendments are permissible without fresh NOC” (reliance on Rules 109 and 102(2)(c)): Only where an amendment does not trigger matters within Rule 103’s enquiry remit can NOC be dispensed with. Adding a new quarry site owned by another person is quintessentially a Rule 103 concern; it cannot be accomplished by a paper “inclusion” or administrative “acknowledgment” without a proper NOC process.
• “Passes under Rule 77(2)(i) carry the site information”: While passes to blasters include site details, they do not replace the statutory requirement that the District Magistrate’s NOC enquiry cover the use‑site. Administrative documentation at the dispatch level cannot supplant the licensing gateway safeguards.
• “Magazine and quarry need not share survey numbers” (PESO): The Court did not dispute that co‑location is not mandatory. The decisive point is that the quarry use‑site must be subject to NOC enquiry, and an explosives licence cannot be “shared” or “extended” to another person’s site absent that process — and certainly cannot satisfy the KMMC requirement unless the proponent holds his own licence.

D. The Doctrinal Core: Personal, Site‑Vetted Licensing as a Precondition for Quarry Permits

The Court’s reasoning is anchored in two complementary pillars:

• Personal nature of an explosives licence: Licensing under the Explosives framework is an exercise in personal accountability and competence. The licence is not a tradable commodity; it cannot be transferred, leased, or “lent” across sites and proprietors to bypass statutory due diligence.
• Site‑specific public‑interest enquiry: The District Magistrate’s NOC enquiry under Rule 103 must assess the precise site where explosives will be used — as required by Form AE‑12 — encompassing public safety, lawful possession, and contextual risks. A “site inclusion” practice that excludes the site from enquiry is antithetical to the statutory design.

From this follows the new rule the Court articulates for KMMC compliance: a quarry proponent must hold an explosives licence in his own name, grounded in a proper NOC that considers his quarry site. Third‑party licences cannot satisfy the LoI condition or the permit/lease gateway under the KMMC Rules.

E. Operative Orders

• Ext. P4 (LE‑3 licence of the 8th respondent) is quashed to the extent it purported to authorise use of explosives at the 7th respondent’s quarry.
• Respondents 2 and 3 (Geologist and PESO authorities) are directed not to grant quarrying permission to the 7th respondent unless and until he produces an explosives licence issued in his favour, in compliance with condition (4) of the LoI (Ext. P3).

Impact and Forward‑Looking Implications

1. Immediate Administrative Consequences

• Alignment of departmental practice with statute: PESO’s “acknowledged inclusion” practice for third‑party quarry sites must cease where it is used to bypass the proponent’s own licensing. Any use‑site inclusion that implicates Rule 103 enquiries requires a fresh NOC process.
• DMG’s gatekeeping under KMMC: The Department of Mining and Geology must insist that the explosives licence be in the proponent’s name before issuing quarry permits/leases — consistent with the Director’s stance recorded as Ext. R1(a).
• Project timelines and compliance costs: Proponents relying on contractors’ LE‑3 licences will need to plan for their own NOC and LE‑3 licence, potentially elongating lead times and increasing compliance expense. However, these are integral to public safety and lawful operation.

2. Safety, Community, and Environmental Governance

• Enhanced site scrutiny: By restoring the statutory centrality of District Magistrate enquiries into the use‑site, the decision fortifies community safety, enables context‑sensitive risk assessments, and ensures that site‑specific adversities (topography, settlement patterns, security conditions) are evaluated.
• Transparency and accountability: Public notice requirements (Rule 103(3)(a)) and the personalised licensing model foster stakeholder participation and reduce opacity in high‑risk operations.

3. Litigation and Policy Trajectory

• Persuasive value beyond Kerala: Although a High Court decision binds within its territorial jurisdiction, the reasoning — resting on central legislation and Rules — is likely to be persuasive in other states facing similar practices.
• Potential appeals or clarifications: Stakeholders may test the ruling in intra‑court appeal or the Supreme Court. PESO may also revise its SOPs to explicitly reflect the NOC/use‑site requirements and the non‑transferability of LE‑3 for KMMC purposes.
• Contracting models revisited: Blasting contractors can still be engaged for operations, but their licensing cannot substitute the project proponent’s own explosives licence where the KMMC LoI/permit requires the proponent to produce it.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Letter of Intent (LoI) vs. Quarrying Permit/Lease: An LoI under KMMC Rules signals in‑principle intent to grant permission, subject to production of all statutory licences and clearances. The permit/lease issues only after those conditions are met.
• LE‑3 Licence: A category of explosives licence authorising possession (for use) of explosives in a magazine. It is personal to the licensee and premised on a prior NOC by the District Magistrate.
• LE‑7 Licence: Licence to transport explosives by road van. Having LE‑7 does not obviate the need for an LE‑3 or the NOC/use‑site enquiry.
• Magazine vs. Quarry Site: The magazine is the storage facility for explosives; the quarry site is where explosives are used. The law requires scrutiny of both, and specifically mandates enquiry into the use‑site when the licence is “for possession for use.”
• NOC under Rules 101–103: A No Objection Certificate granted after a District Magistrate’s enquiry into the applicant, lawful possession, public interest, and conditions at the site where explosives will be used. It involves public notice and may consider any relevant factor, including security threats.
• “Possession for use”: A legal term in the Explosives Rules indicating that the licence allows holding explosives with the intention to use them; it triggers the special requirement to disclose and vet the site of use (Form AE‑12, Column 5).
• Amendment vs. Fresh NOC: Licences can be amended for changes that do not implicate matters requiring a fresh NOC enquiry. Where the change affects the use‑site (e.g., adding a different person’s quarry), a fresh NOC process is necessary.

Compliance Checklist for Quarry Proponents

1. Obtain LoI under KMMC Rules after site inspection.
2. Apply for District Magistrate approval and NOC under Rules 101–103 of the Explosives Rules, using Form AE‑12; ensure Column 5 accurately describes the quarry use‑site.
3. Undergo DM enquiry, including public notice; establish lawful possession, safety measures, and public interest compliance.
4. Post‑NOC, apply to PESO for LE‑3 (Rule 107), with supporting documents as required by Rules 104–105.
5. Once LE‑3 is issued in the proponent’s own name, produce it to the Department of Mining and Geology to satisfy LoI condition(s) and obtain the quarrying permit/lease.
6. Engage blasting contractors as needed, ensuring all operational passes (e.g., to blasters) and transport licences (LE‑7) remain in strict compliance, without substituting the proponent’s LE‑3.

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court has decisively reaffirmed that explosives licensing for quarry operations is both personal and site‑specific. The judgment establishes a clear rule: to obtain quarrying permits or leases under the KMMC Rules, the project proponent must hold an explosives licence in his own name. Attempts to satisfy this statutory requirement by “including” the proponent’s site in another licensee’s LE‑3 — without the proponent undergoing the NOC enquiry for the use‑site — are ultra vires.

By quashing the purported authorisation to use the 8th respondent’s LE‑3 at the 7th respondent’s quarry, the Court restores fidelity to the Explosives Act scheme, prioritising public safety and accountability. The decision will likely reshape administrative practice, compel stricter adherence to NOC processes, and enhance community safeguards around high‑risk quarry blasting activities. Its reasoning, rooted in central statutes and forms, has persuasive force beyond Kerala and offers a robust template for harmonising mining permissions with explosives regulation.

Key takeaway: statutory gatekeeping cannot be relaxed by administrative custom. Where the law demands personal, site‑vetted licensing for explosives use, only full compliance will do.