Judgment : A.K. Tayasankaran Nambiar, J. 1. As these Writ Appeals are preferred against the common judgment dated 10.04.2013 in W.P.(C).Nos.754/2013 and 1038/2013, they are taken up together for disposal. 2. The appellant in both the writ appeals is the same. While she was the 4th respondent in W.P.(C).No.754/2013, she was also the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.l038/2013. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their status in W.A.No.706/2013 arising from W.P.(C).No.754/2013. 3. W.P.(C).No.754/2013 was filed by the 1st respondent challenging Ext.P9 order of the RDO. The 1st respondent had applied for and obtained a quarrying permit for extraction of laterite building stone from an extent of 15.77 Ares (38.5 Cents) of land in Sy.No.498/4 of Kallalibhagam Village. Ext.Pl is the said permit issued by the Senior Geologist, Mining and Geology Department. The said permit was valid upto 18.07.2013. The appellant owned property on the eastern side of the property covered by Ext.PI permit and she had filed several complaints against the mining activities carried on by the 1st respondent. When no action was forthcoming on those complaints, she preferred a writ petition that culminated in Ext.P3 judgment whereby the RDO, Tahsildar and Geologist were directed to conduct an inspection and ascertain whether the 1st respondent was complying with the terms of Ext.PI permit issued to him. 4. It would appear that, immediately thereafter, stop memos were issued to the 1st respondent, at the instance of the RDO and Geologist, pending the completion of an inspection by the said authorities as per the directions of this Court. Eventually, the Geologist, as per Ext.P8 order passed by him, found the 1st respondent to be complying with the terms of the permit issued to him. The RDO, however, opined that the 1st respondent was carrying on unauthorised mining activities and accordingly passed Ext.P9 order restricting the mining activities to a period of seven days. It was these orders that were challenged by the appellant and the 1st respondent respectively in W.P.(C).No.1038/2013 and W. P. (C).No. 754/2013. 5. The learned single judge who heard the writ petitions found that the Senior Geologist was the competent authority to grant quarrying permit under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 and hence the RDO had no power to impose any further conditions on the 1st respondent in relation to the quarrying activities carried on by him. 5. The learned single judge who heard the writ petitions found that the Senior Geologist was the competent authority to grant quarrying permit under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 and hence the RDO had no power to impose any further conditions on the 1st respondent in relation to the quarrying activities carried on by him. He accordingly dismissed W.P.(C).No. 1038/2013 and allowed W.P.(C).No.754/2013. It is therefore that the appellant is now before us through these appeals. 6. It might be relevant to point out that after these appeals were admitted, this Court, vide an interim order dated 05.06.2013, directed the RDO and the Senior Geologist to inspect the sites, covered by the respective permits granted by them to the 1st respondent, and verify whether the 1st respondent has complied with the directions issued by them pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment. In the report submitted by the Geologist before this Court, he has stated that there are no illegalities noticed in the extraction activities of laterite building stone carried on by the 1st respondent. In the report submitted by the RDO, however, he has opined that insofar as the 1st respondent had removed earth more than the area allowed under the permit issued to him by the RDO, there were clear violations of the conditions laid down by him in Ext.P9 order. We note, however, that the reports of the Geologist and the RDO were both rendered in the context of the permits issued by them. 7. We have heard Adv.Sri.Alias M. Cherian appearing on behalf of the appellant in both the writ appeals as well as Adv.Sri.J.Omprakash appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent. We have also heard the learned Government Pleader Sri.Syamkumar appearing on behalf of the official respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that as per the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 and, in particular, Rule 5 thereof, the grant of any quarrying permit to the 1st respondent by the Geologist had to be conditional upon the grant of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the District Collector or his delegate, the RDO. In the absence of such an NOC, the quarrying permit granted by the Geologist was illegal. In the absence of such an NOC, the quarrying permit granted by the Geologist was illegal. It is pointed out that the 1st respondent is carrying on quarrying activities without valid licences and permits and that, at any rate, the validity of the permit issued to him has already expired on 18.07.2013. To a pointed question as to who would be the authority competent to issue permits to an applicant for a quarrying permit, he would state that insofar as any quarrying activity would involve the preliminary activity of removing surface soil and leveling etc, the requirement of obtaining a NOC from the RDO was mandatory. It is his contention that even for a quarrying permit issued by a Geologist, a NOC from the RDO was a pre-condition. He relies on the provisions of Rule 5 (5) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 in support of his contention. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the 1st respondent would contend that in respect of the quarrying activities carried on by him, the regulatory authority is the Geologist and it is to him that an application for a quarrying permit is to be preferred. He states that his is a case covered by Rule 4 (1A) and hence the competent authority to issue the permit was the Geologist. He would further submit that in view of the fact that the Geologist had reported before this Court that the quarrying activities were being carried out in due compliance with the terms of the permit and the directions issued by the Geologist, there was no merit in the allegations raised by the appellant. He would also point out that since, in the instant case, the quarrying activities had been stopped pursuant to stop memos issued at the instance of the Geologist and RDO, he could not seek a renewal of the permit on its expiry in July 2013, and hence the interests of justice would mandate that, while dismissing the appeals, this Court also issue suitable directions to the Geologist to consider extending the period of the quarrying permit already issued to the 1st respondent rather than insisting on a fresh application for the same. 10. We have considered submissions of counsel on either side. 10. We have considered submissions of counsel on either side. This is a case where the only issue to be considered is whether it is the RDO or the Geologist who should be treated as the competent authority for issuing a quarrying permit to the 1st respondent. The question as to whether the 1st respondent was carrying on his activities in due compliance with the terms of the permit issued to him and the directions given by the competent authority can be answered only after we first ascertain who the competent authority in this case is. If it is the RDO, then the legality of the activities carried on by the 1st respondent will have to be tested against the terms of the permit granted to him by the RDO and the further directions issued under Ext.P9. On the contrary, if the Geologist is the competent authority, then the legality has to be tested against the terms of the permit granted by him and the observations in Ext.P8 order. The reports filed by both the authorities before this Court would also have a bearing in the matter. 11. The relevant provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, are extracted herein below: "3. Definitions:- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires:- (i) ………. (ii) ………. (iii) …………. (iv)"Competent authority" means the authority or officer appointed by the State Government by notification in the Gazette to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the competent authority under these rules; (v) "Quarrying permit" means a permit granted under Chapter II of these rules to extract and remove any minor mineral in specified quantities and within a specified time; [4. (1) Grant of quarrying permit:- On application made to it the competent authority or an officer authorised by it in this regard may grant a quarrying permit to any Indian National to extract and remove from any specified land within the limits of its jurisdiction any minor mineral [except for dimension stones as specified in Rule 8A] not exceeding 10,000 tonnes in quantity under one permit, on payment of such royalties in advance as the competent authority or the officer concerned may fix on the basis of the rates specified in schedule I and also on payment in advance of such surface rent and cesses as may be assessable on the lands: Provided that the competent authority or the officer authorised by it in this regard may reduce the quantity applied for or refuse to grant such permit for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided further that in the case of quarrying of ordinary clay for the manufacture of tiles, bricks earthenware and potteries the royalty on the mineral will be payable by the manufacturing Industry on the basis of actual consumption of the mineral during the calender year.] (1A) In respect of application of persons opted under consolidated royalty payment system, the permit shall be valid for one year from the date of issue within the respective area granted under the above system. The Senior Geologist/Geologist of the District Office of the Department of Mining and Geology in their respective area are duly authorized to grant/renew the quarrying permit under Consolidated Royalty Payment System as per schedule V. On expiry of Form 'P' granted for a stipulated period, if the Consolidated Royalty Payment System holder requires additional Form 'p', it shall be issued on payment of Rs.5,ooo (five thousand only) per 100 p' Forms or multiples of the said amount subject to a maximum of 1000 p' Forms]. (2) In respect of dimension stones as specified in rule 8A, the quantity under one permit shall be limited to 500 cubic metre]. 5. Application for quarrying permit. (1) An application for a quarrying permit shall be made in Form A and shall contain the following particulars, namely:- (a) name, address, profession and nationality of the applicant; (b) name and quantity of the minor mineral for which the permit is required; (c) description such as, location, survey number etc. 5. Application for quarrying permit. (1) An application for a quarrying permit shall be made in Form A and shall contain the following particulars, namely:- (a) name, address, profession and nationality of the applicant; (b) name and quantity of the minor mineral for which the permit is required; (c) description such as, location, survey number etc. of the lands from which the minor mineral is to be extracted and removed; (d) purpose for which the minor mineral is to be used. (2) Every application for a quarrying permit shall be accompanied by an attested copy of the survey map of the area, attested by an officer not below the rank of a [Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar (Headquarters)]. The area shall be coloured red in the map. (3) Every application for a quarrying permit shall, if the lands from which the minor mineral is to be extracted are occupied lands, be accompanied by a letter from the occupant of such lands, to the effect that he has no objection to the extraction of the minor mineral by the applicant: Provided that in the case of an application for brick earth, ordinary clay for the manufacture of tiles, bricks etc. the quarrying permit will be granted without such letter if the applicant/s undertake/s that it shall be produced before the competent authority or an officer authorised by it in this regard before conducting actual quarrying or collection of minor minerals from the lands. (4) Every application shall be accompanied by a certified copy, certified by an officer not below the rank of a [Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar (Headquarters)] of the relevant extracts from the record of rights in respect of the lands from which the minor mineral is proposed to be extracted and removed. (4) Every application shall be accompanied by a certified copy, certified by an officer not below the rank of a [Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar (Headquarters)] of the relevant extracts from the record of rights in respect of the lands from which the minor mineral is proposed to be extracted and removed. [(5) Every application for grant of quarrying permit in respect of minor minerals mentioned in item 2 of schedule I appended to these rules shall be accompanied by a No Objection Certificate from the District Collector concerned: Provided that an application for obtaining permission for digging up of or renovation of ponds or wells or tanks and for the renovation of stagnant water bodies in patta lands in order to store water for irrigation, agriculture, pisciculture (aquaculture) or for such other purposes where extraction of ordinary clay and/or ordinary sand is necessary the No Objection Certificate stipulated in this rule is not mandatory but shall be accompanied by a certificate from the Agriculatural Officer or officer in charge of Marine Products Export Development Agency or Department of Fisheries or Village Officer or local authority concerned to the effect that the applicant is in need of digging up of or renovation of ponds or wells or tanks or in need of renovation of stagnant water bodies in patta land in order to store water for irrigation or agriculture or pisciculture (aquaculture) purposes, or for such other public purposes, as the case may be; Provided further that in the case of applications for extraction of ordinary clay from the lands specified in Government Orders issued from time to time in this regard, production of No Objection Certificate from the District Collector is not mandatory.] [(6) Every application for grant of quarrying permit in respect of minor minerals mentioned in item 2 of Schedule I appended to these rules shall be accompanied by a financial security in the form of bank guarantee from any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank at the rate fixed by Public Works Department for the purpose of reclamation of pits to be formed in the applied area after quarrying: Provided that in the case of application for obtaining permission for digging up of or renovation of ponds or wells or tanks and for renovation of stagnant water bodies in order to store water for irrigation or agriculture or pisciculture (aquaculture) purposes or for such other purposes where extraction of ordinary clay and/or ordinary sand is necessary, conditions stipulated in this rule shall not apply.] [(7) Every application for grant of quarrying permit for ordinary earth from any type of land shall be accompanied by a No Objection Certificate from the District Collector concerned.]" Schedule I Rates of Royalty (See Rules 4 and 17) “TABLE” 12. It will be seen from a perusal of the said provisions that the District Collector or his delegate, the RDO, can be a competent authority for the purposes of Rule 4, if they have been appointed and notified as such by the State Government. The provisions of Rule 4 (1A) however indicate that if the application for quarrying permit is under the Consolidated Royalty Payment System, then the competent authority is the Geologist. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the quarry in question is one that attracts the provisions of Rule 4 (1A). A perusal of the Quarrying permit obtained by the 1st respondent would show that. It follows, therefore, that only the Geologist had the power to issue the quarrying permit to the 1st respondent. The RDO, therefore, could not have issued any direction or imposed any condition contrary to those contained in the quarrying permit obtained by the 1st respondent from the Geologist. 13. The contention of the appellant, relying on Rule 5(5) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, that the 1st respondent had nevertheless to obtain an NOC from the District Collector or his delegate insofar as he was carrying on quarrying activities in respect of a minor mineral is also legally untenable. As is evident from a reading of Rule 5(5) itself, the requirement of obtaining an NOC from the District Collector arises only in the event of quarrying being carried out in respect of minor minerals specified in item 2 of Schedule I appended to the Rules. The said entry does not relate to or take in laterite building stones and hence the procedural requirements mandated by Rule 5 (5) are not attracted to the case at hand. We also see no merit in the contention of the appellant that, insofar as quarrying activity in relation to laterite building stones would also involve preliminary activities that fall within the ambit of quarrying of minor minerals, the 1st respondent is legally obliged to obtain an NOC from the District Collector for the said activities. We also see no merit in the contention of the appellant that, insofar as quarrying activity in relation to laterite building stones would also involve preliminary activities that fall within the ambit of quarrying of minor minerals, the 1st respondent is legally obliged to obtain an NOC from the District Collector for the said activities. When the statutory provisions clearly mandate that the application for a quarrying permit under the Consolidated Royalty Payment System is to be made to a particular authority, then there is no reason to assume that the Rule making authority did not understand the scope of the term quarrying or that it would not involve preliminary activities that partook of the nature of quarrying of minor minerals specified in Schedule I as well. When there is a specific provision for applying for a quarrying permit under the Consolidated Royalty Payment System, we feel there is no scope for reading into the said provision, further procedural requirements that were not contemplated by the statute. For the reasons adverted to above, we see no merit in the writ appeals and they are accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.