V.M. Syam Kumar, J.

1. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 13.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.23894 of 2025. Appellant was the 9th respondent in the said W.P.(C).

2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the petitioners inter alia challenging the constitutional validity of clause (iv) and proviso to sub-para 1 of para 9 of Ext.P8 notification and Ext.P9 office memorandum. The primary contention put forth was that mere remittance of the royalty or penalty cannot exonerate a project proponent from the rigours of having violated the mining plan and that compounding an offence will not wipe off the impact of violation of the mining plan. An ancillary prayer to cancel Ext.P20 Environmental Clearance granted to the appellant to operate the quarry was also sought insofar as earlier the appellant had been subjected to compounding and imposition of penalty. An interim prayer inter alia seeking a direction to the official respondents to ensure that the appellant does not carry out any mining based on Ext.P20 Environment Clearance had also been sought in the W.P.(C).

3. The learned Single Judge admitted the W.P.(C) and proceeded to consider the interim prayer. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge rendered the impugned interim order, the operative portion whereof which reads as follows:

                            “18. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to the 9th respondent to stop all further quarrying activities forthwith, until the above exercise in terms of Rule 68(2) and Rule 50 is done by the Government or the competent authority, as the case may be. In view of the fact that the quarrying operations are directed to be stalled, there will be a direction to the concerned among respondents 3, 5 and 6 to take an appropriate call as directed above. For the sake of convenience, this Court bifurcates the consideration under Rule 68(2) to be done by the 6th respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. For the purpose of Rule 50, this Court directs the 3rd respondent or the 5th respondent, as the case may be, to take a call within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that once consideration of Rule 68(2) is in favour of the 9th respondent, the quarrying operations can be resumed; and the same need not wait until consideration in terms of Rule 50 is completed, subject to the 9th respondent possessing all requisite licenses, permits, E.Cs etc as per law. If the consideration based on Rule 50 culminates in an Order to cancel the lease, the activities will have to be stopped. Needless to say that before taking a call by the respective authorities, the petitioners, as also, the 9th respondent be afforded with an opportunity of being heard. The 9th respondent will produce a copy of this judgment before the competent authorities for compliance. Upon consideration based on Rule 68(2) and Rule 50, necessary Orders shall be passed by the competent authorities within the time frame stipulated above.

                            19. Let the writ petition be kept pending, in view of the other reliefs sought for in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the 9th respondent would submit that certain granites which have already been extracted is lying in the property, and that the movement permits have been issued till 30.09.2025. The same may be permitted to be removed, is the request made by the learned counsel for the 9th respondent. This Court directs the Geologist to conduct an inspection to the quarry of the 9th respondent to ascertain the extent of granite stone, which has already been extracted and liable to be removed from the quarry. The same shall be done by the Geologist and movement passes will be issued accordingly.

                            20. In view of the fact that the movement permits expired on 30.09.2025, the 6th respondent/ Geologist is directed to issue fresh movement permits only for transportation of granite already extracted.”

4. Aggrieved by the said interim order to the extent the interim order directed a closure of quarrying activities by the appellant based on Ext.P20 Environment Clearance, till the exercise in terms of Rule 68(2) and Rule 50 is carried out, this Writ Appeal has been filed.

5. Heard Sri.Kurian George Kannanthanam, Senior Advocate, instructed by Sri.Babu Jospeh Kuruvathazha, Advocate for the appellant, Sri.V.Harish, Advocate, for the respondents 1 to 3, Sri.K.S.Bharathan, Advocate, for Respondents 4 & 5 and Sri.Tekchand, Senior Government Pleader for Respondents 6 to 9.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned interim order restraining the quarrying had not taken into consideration the effect of Ext.P22 judgment dated 27.09.2024 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3722 of 2024 in which the 1st respondent herein was the petitioner.

7. It is submitted that the very same issue had been raised in the said W.P.(C) and this Court while disposing of the same vide Ext.P22 judgment had directed the 9th respondent, Geologist, to ensure that the appellant operates the quarry in accordance with the conditions laid down and as per the mandates of the license and permits issued.

8. According to the learned Senior Counsel, Ext.P22 judgment operated as res judicata, and the learned Single Judge while issuing the impugned interim order, had overlooked the said specific direction to the Geologist in Ext.P22. The interim order to stop the quarrying operation while directing the official respondents to take steps as per Rule 68(2) and Rule 50 to be carried out, could not have been issued in the light of the said direction to the Geologist in Ext.P22 judgment.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 objects to the prayer to operate the quarry during the interregnum, pointing out that the essential object of carrying out the steps as per Rule 68(2) and Rule 50 is to ascertain the need for restoration/reparation and permitting the operation of the quarry in the meanwhile would have detrimental impact on the local environment.

10. Since it was relevant to ascertain the nature and status of the activities carried out by the appellant after Ext.P22 judgment, especially taking note of the fact that compounding of the past offences by itself would not constitute a legal sanction to further any illegal activities, this court had on directed respondent Nos.7 and 9 to file a statement regarding the activities carried on in the relevant quarry after the compounding. Accordingly, a statement dated 10.12.2025 was filed by the 9th respondent, Geologist. The relevant portion thereof reads as follows:

                            “Pursuant to the impugned interim order, this respondent has conducted a site inspection on 18.11.2025, it was noticed that no quarrying operations were conducted by the appellant. Further, it was noticed that no stock of extracted quantity of Granite Building Stone in the quarry. It is also submitted that this respondent has not noticed any violations in quarrying operations after compounding of the offence.”

11. It is discernible from the above statement filed by the Geologist that, after the compounding, no violations had been noted, and as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, not much of quarrying activity itself had been carried out thereafter.

12. We find merit in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that since the appellant possesses the Environmental Clearance as well as the relevant permissions/certificates to continue with the quarrying operation, in the light of the statement filed by the Geologist, who had been vide Ext. P22 judgment been directed to oversee the quarrying activity; there was no reason to interdict the operation of the quarry by the appellant as long as it remained within the parameters laid down by law and as per the permissions/licenses granted. The direction in the impugned interim order that till the exercise as directed therein in terms of Rule 68(2) and Rule 50 is completed, the quarrying activities shall be stopped, does indeed put fetters on the right of the appellant to carry out the legally permitted quarrying activities.

13. Since the appellant has all requisite permissions and sanctions for conducting quarrying operations, and as it has been reported by the Geologist that there has been no violation after the compounding of the earlier violations, there is no reason to stop the quarrying activities while the exercise as directed under Rule 68(2) and Rule 50 are underway/ completed.

14. In view of the above, the interim order dated 13.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge, to the extent it directs the appellant to stop all further quarrying activities, while the exercise directed to be carried out therein under Rule 68(2) and Rule 50 is completed, is set aside. The appellant shall be permitted to operate the quarry strictly in accordance with the law while the other directions in the interim order are carried out. The 9th respondent Geologist, shall as directed in Ext.P22 judgment continue to oversee that the appellant is operating the quarry in accordance with law and as per the mandates of the licenses/permits. It is clarified that, except to the above limited extent, we have not interfered with any of the observations/ directions of the learned Single Judge in the impugned interim order nor touched upon the merits of the matter.

15. The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. The modification of the impugned interim order shall remain confined/limited to the above extent. The parties are reverted to the learned Single Judge to pursue their contentions in the WP (C). All questions are left open. Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.