JUDGMENT : Petitioner is operating a granite quarry on the strength of Ext.P2 quarrying lease. It is stated by the petitioner that she possesses all the requisite licences and permissions to carry out quarrying operations at the site covered by Ext.P2 quarrying lease. On 03.10.2017, the petitioner was issued Ext.P10 notice by the second respondent by which she was asked to stop the quarrying activities at the site referred to above. It is recited in Ext.P10 notice that the direction contained therein is issued since there exists a residential building within 50 meters from the site of the quarry. Ext.P10 notice is under challenge in the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. The fact that Rule 40(1)(i) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 ('the Rules') prohibits lessees under quarrying leases from conducting carrying operations within 50 meters from residential buildings is not disputed by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner, on the other hand, is that the owner of the building referred to in Ext.P10 notice has no objection in the petitioner carrying on the quarrying operations at the site. Ext.P9 affidavit of the owner of the residential building referred to above is relied on by the petitioner in support of her case that the owner of the residential building has no objection against the quarrying operations. 4. The Rules have been framed by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ('the Act'). Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act confers power on the State Government to make rules for regulating, among others, grant of quarry leases in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. Rule 40(1)(i) of the Rules reads thus: 40. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act confers power on the State Government to make rules for regulating, among others, grant of quarry leases in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. Rule 40(1)(i) of the Rules reads thus: 40. Conditions of quarrying lease.—(1) Every quarrying lease shall be subject to the following conditions and/or any other conditions that may be imposed by the competent authority and such conditions shall be incorporated in every quarrying lease deed,— x x x x x x x x x x x x x x (i) in cases where explosives are not used for quarrying, the lessee shall not carry on or allowed to be carried on any quarrying operations at or to any points within a distance of 75 metres from any railway line except with the previous written permission of the railway administration concerned and any bridge on National Highway or 50 metres from any reservoir, tanks, canals, rivers, bridges, public roads, other public works, residential buildings, the boundary walls of places of worship, burial grounds, burning ghats or any Government protected monuments or forest lands except with the previous permission of the authorities concerned or the Government or competent authority: Provided that the railway administration or the State Government or any other authority in this behalf may in granting such permission impose such other conditions as may be found proper and necessary: Provided further that in cases where explosives are used for quarrying, the lessee shall not carry on or allowed to be carried on any quarrying operations at or to any points within a distance of 100 metres from any railway line, bridges, reservoirs, tanks, residential buildings, Government protected monuments, canals, rivers, public roads having vehicular traffic, any other public works or the boundary walls of places of worship or 50 metres from any burial grounds or burning ghats or forest lands; Having regard to the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules, it is beyond dispute that the stipulations contained in Rule 40(1)(i) of the Rules that there shall not be any quarrying operations within 50 meters from residential buildings is a stipulation made in public interest. In so far as the stipulation aforesaid is one made in public interest, according to me, the petitioner cannot get over the said stipulation on the basis of the affidavit obtained from the affected person, for, the affected person cannot waive the benefit of such statutory stipulations made in public interest. Relying on a passage from Maxwell on 'The Interpretation of Statutes', the Apex Court has held so in Krishnan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir [ (1994)4 SCC 422 ]. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the expression 'except with the previous permission of the authorities concerned or the Government or competent authority' contained in Rule 40(1)(i) submits that the stipulation contained therein is not an absolute one and that therefore, the affected persons are entitled to waive the protection of the rule. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention of the petitioner also. It is seen that Rule 40 (1) (i) imposes restrictions in the matter of conducting quarrying operations within the distances specified therein from railway lines, bridges on National Highway, reservoirs, tanks, canals, rivers, bridges, public roads, other public works, residential buildings, places of worship, burial grounds, burning ghats, national parks and wild life sanctuaries. As regards the restriction imposed therein in respect of railway lines, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the same is not absolute, as the rule permits relaxation with the previous written permission of the railway administration. It is seen that the expression 'except with the previous permission of the authorities concerned or the Government or competent authority' is used in the context of the remaining matters contained in the rule. Going by the words used in the expression aforesaid, in the absence of any mention in the expression about the persons residing in the residential buildings, I am of the view that the same would apply only to the places and objects referred to in the rule which are controlled by the Government, Governmental bodies and statutory authorities. There is, therefore, no merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.