JUDGMENT : On an application preferred by the petitioner, the second respondent has issued Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate to the petitioner on 07.01.2014 for extracting granite building stones from a Government land measuring 4.39.80 Hectors in V-Kottayam Village. Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate was issued for a period of ten years from the date on which the petitioner obtains quarrying lease for the said purpose under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 (the Rules). On the basis of Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate, the petitioner applied for grant of quarrying lease. On the said application, the petitioner was issued Ext.P3 letter of intent, directing them to produce the various licences and permissions obtained by them for the purpose of conducting quarrying operations, including a certificate from the second respondent to the effect that Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate still holds good. Pursuant to Ext.P3, the petitioner applied for such a certificate to the second respondent. The request made by the petitioner in this regard has been turned down by the second respondent in terms of Ext.P5 communication. Ext.P5 communication is under challenge in the writ petition. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent reiterating the reasons stated in Ext.P5 communication for declining the certificate sought by the petitioner. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended vehemently that in so far as the petitioner has been issued No Objection Certificate once, it was highly inappropriate on the part of the second respondent in declining the certificate sought for by the petitioner, after the petitioner has acted upon the No Objection Certificate and obtained the various other licences and permissions required for the purpose of conducting the quarry proposed by them, spending sizeable amounts and wasting enormous time and energy. According to the learned counsel, none of the reasons stated in Ext.P5 would justify the decision of the second respondent to decline the certificate sought for by the petitioner. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate was issued at a point of time when there was no guidelines for issue of No Objection Certificate, and guidelines have now been framed by the Government for the said purpose, in terms of G.O.(Ms) No.28/2021/RD dated 28.1.2021. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate was issued at a point of time when there was no guidelines for issue of No Objection Certificate, and guidelines have now been framed by the Government for the said purpose, in terms of G.O.(Ms) No.28/2021/RD dated 28.1.2021. According to the learned Government Pleader, as per the said guidelines, No Objection Certificate holders have to pay lease rent and furnish security for obtaining No Objection Certificate. It was also pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that in terms of the said guidelines, only those who offer the maximum amount of lease rent in the e-tendering process contemplated under the guidelines are entitled to No Objection Certificate. The learned Government Pleader has made available a copy of the said guidelines for perusal of the court. According to the learned Government Pleader, in the circumstances, the second respondent cannot be found fault with for having declined the certificate sought by the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader has also pointed out that the petitioner is a defaulter of the seigniorage payable to the Government in respect of another No Objection Certificate and such a person shall not be extended the benefit of discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court under Article 226 of the Constitution for granting reliefs on equitable grounds. 6. In reply to the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that new guidelines cannot be applied in respect of the Government land covered by Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate since the said land does not have road access. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that since the Government land covered by Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate is surrounded by the private holdings of the Managing Partner of the petitioner, the petitioner has obtained No Objection Certificate in respect of the said Government land. As regards the arrears of seigniorage mentioned in Ext.P5 order, it was pointed out by the learned counsel that the arrears of seigniorage referred to in Ext.P5 order is part of a larger claim of Rs.5,71,83,621/-demanded for a longer period at the rate of Rs.2.50 per metric tonne upto 2.2.2015, at the rate of Rs.200/-per metric tonne thereafter upto 17.2.2016 and at the rate of Rs.50/-per metric tonne for the period thereafter. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the unilateral fixation of seigniorage at the rate of Rs.200/-per metric tonne for the period from 2.2.2015 to 17.2.2016 was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4315 of 2020 and the said writ petition is pending. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel that the number of the said writ petition is wrongly mentioned in the counter affidavit as W.P.(C) No.7557 of 2020. According to the learned counsel, in the circumstances, the Managing Partner of the petitioner paid the entire claim except the claim raised for the period from 2.2.2015 to 17.2.2016 amounting to Rs.3,52,00,687/-and the said amount has not been paid since the writ petition challenging the demand is pending. It was, however, conceded by the learned counsel that there is no interim order in the said writ petition. It was submitted by the learned counsel that if the arrears aforesaid is the impediment for grant of the certificate sought for by the petitioner, the Managing Partner of the petitioner is prepared to pay the said amount subject to the outcome of the writ petition referred to above. 7. Various reasons, relevant and irrelevant, have been mentioned in Ext.P5 communication. It is seen that essentially the certificate sought by the petitioner has been declined mainly on the grounds (i)that Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate has been issued while the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 was in force and the said rules has been replaced by Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, (ii) that environmental clearance is now being granted only for a period of five years and No Objection Certificate cannot, therefore, be issued for a longer period and (iii) that the Managing Partner of the petitioner has defaulted payment of seigniorage to the tune of Rs.3,52,00,687/-. 8. On a specific query from the court, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the Government land covered by Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate does not have road access. If that be so, the e-tendering process contemplated in terms of the new guidelines cannot be made applicable for the said Government land. 8. On a specific query from the court, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the Government land covered by Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate does not have road access. If that be so, the e-tendering process contemplated in terms of the new guidelines cannot be made applicable for the said Government land. True, in so far as the petitioner has been granted No Objection Certificate, it is inappropriate to deny the benefit of the same to them after the petitioner has acted upon the same and obtained all other requisite permissions and licences for the purpose of running the quarry spending sizeable amounts and wasting enormous time and energy. At the same time, in so far as the petitioner does not have any right to claim No Objection Certificate to extract minerals from Government land, and in so far as No Objection Certificate is issued so as to enable the State to make use of its resources for other purposes in public interest, there cannot be any impediment in law for the State in claiming from the petitioner the dues fixed for granting such privileges from time to time. 9. Now, I shall deal with the reasons stated in Ext.P5 communication for declining the certificate sought for by the petitioner. There is no provision in the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 precluding the authorities under the said rules from acting upon the No Objection Certificate issued by the District Collector prior to the said rules for the purpose of considering the request of persons concerned for grant of quarrying permits/quarrying leases. In other words, the reason in Ext.P5 communication that Ext.P2 is one issued under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1967 and therefore, the same will not hold good for the purpose of obtaining a quarrying lease in terms of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 is unsustainable. Similarly, the reason stated in Ext.P5 that since environmental clearance is granted only for a period of five years, No Objection Certificate cannot be granted for a period exceeding five years, is equally unsustainable since the No Objection Certificate cannot be made use of for the purpose intended, if the holder does not have environmental clearance. The reason stated in Ext.P5 communication as regards the arrears of seigniorage is not relevant now since the petitioner undertakes to pay the same. 10. The reason stated in Ext.P5 communication as regards the arrears of seigniorage is not relevant now since the petitioner undertakes to pay the same. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Ext.P5 is quashed and the second respondent is directed to issue the certificate sought for by the petitioner on the petitioner remitting Rs.3,52,00,687/-, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall comply with all the conditions stipulated in G.O.(Ms)No.28/2021/RD dated 28.01.2021 as regards payments to be made and securities to be furnished. This shall be done within two weeks. It is made clear that the payment of Rs.3,52,00,687/-in terms of this judgment will be subject to the outcome of W.P.(C) No.4315 of 2020. It is also made clear that in case W.P.(C) No.4315 of 2020 is dismissed, the second respondent will be free to call upon the petitioner to pay interest for the said liability as well and in that event, the petitioner should pay interest for the amount, and the second respondent would be free to recall the certificate issued, if the petitioner fails to pay interest.