Lopinot Limestone Ltd v The Attorney General
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Judge | Deyalsingh, J. |
| Judgment Date | 29 July 1982 |
| Neutral Citation | TT 1982 HC 58 |
| Docket Number | No. 2720 of 1980 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
| Date | 29 July 1982 |
High Court
Deyalsingh, J.
No. 2720 of 1980
Dr. F Ramsahoye and K. Sager for plaintiff.
Mr. C. Beckles for defendant.
Administrative Law - Administrative Acts — Validity — Procedural requirements.
The plaintiff is the owner of several contiguous parcels of land comprising 202 acres in the Lopinot Valley of the Northern Range. There are limestone deposits on the said land. The plaintiff had a Quarry Survey (hereinafter referred to as “the Survey”) done by a Geologist, one Winston Rajpaulsingh B.Sc. (Math, Physics and Chemistry), B.Sc. (Special Huns.) (Geology), Diploma (Management Studies), and Registered Consultant with the Central Tenders Board, the Geological Society of Trinidad and Tobago and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. The Survey showed that there are quarryable limestone deposits on a 22 acre portion of the said land with a money potential in excess of $500 million over a 70 year period. With the ready demand in recent years for limestone products the plaintiff desires to utilise its land for the advantage of its shareholders.
The plaintiff accordingly submitted an application dated 27th November, 1978 under the Town and Country Planning Act No. 29 of 1960 (now Chapter 35:01) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to enable it to carry out quarrying operations. The plaintiff followed up its application by visits of its Geologist to other government agencies which had to do with such applications — the Department of Petroleum and Mines, the Forrestry Department, the Lands and Surveys Department and the Health and Environmental Department. These agencies XII indicated to the plaintiff's geologist that they would sit as a Quarry Advisory Committee to study the Survey and would visit the site of the proposed quarry on a date to be advised. These agencies must have been acting in accordance with established practice and/or with the approval of the Minister responsible for Planning and Development.
A perusal of the Survey reveals its comprehensive and technical nature. Its Table of Contents is instructive and I quote from the Survey:
| Table of Contents Nos. | Page |
| A — INTRODUCTION | 1 |
| B — Topography and Geology | 2 |
| C — Quantitative Volumetric | 3 |
| Estimate of Limestone | 5 |
| D — Petrography and Chemical Analysis of Limestone | 6 |
| E — Engineering Properties of Limestone | 6 |
| F — Brief Economic Analysis | 9 |
| G — Main Uses of this Limestone | 11 |
| H — PROPOSED ACCESS AND INITIAL OPERATING PROCEDURE | 12 |
| I — Conclusions” | 13 |
In addition it contained six Maps and Figures — Location, Topographic, Geological, Cross-Sections and Access and Initial Operations. The Survey stated in part:
“Quantitative Volumetric Estimate of Limestone
Total Limestone in place — 45,592,000 cubic yards
Total Quarryable Limestone — 17,676,000 cubic yards.
Brief Economic Analysis
The total quarryable (economic) Limestone is 17,676,000 cubic yards, of which about 10% is lost by crushing and screening.
The working of this quarry for Boulders, Face Stone and crazy Pave would realise an ultimate of approximately TT$265,000,000.00. This operation at a given sales volume of 50,000 cubic yards per year would take about 350 years. I
With crushing/screening operations, the approximate yearly saleable material is 250,000 cubic yards per year, giving an expected quarry life of 70 year. The expected total cash receipts of todays price is in excess of TT$500,000,000.00.
A number of spin-off industries using this limestone as the main raw material is possible in accordance with the use of the limestone to market demands.
………
MAIN USES OF THIS LIMESTONE
As first class material for road and building construction.
The main raw material ingredient for making cement.
As flux in the steel and Aluminium Industries.
4. For Agricultural purposes in treating soils.
5. In domestic water treatment plants — as lime.
6. As the base for terrazo material.
7. For making of pipes.
8. With the final bituminous mix for road sheeting metal barbergreen (1/4” metal with fines — residue from crushing).
1. The total limestone in place is 42,592,000 cubic yards, of which 17,676,000 is quarryable on an economic scale.
2. The Engineering Properties and Chemical Analysis of this limestone body indicate that the material is ideally suited for road making end in the Construction and Building Industry.
3. The existing access road — the La Pastors Road is a third class, gravel surface road. This existing road need to be reconstituted for trucking purposes, and the 1/4 mile of proposed road be built to link with existing road.
4. The initial operations would entail the complete working of about three (3) acres to its exhaustible limit and then reclaimed for agriculture, while another adjacent three acres would be worked for quarrying. This three acre phased operation is to conserve the water resources in this area as much as possible. The ridge on which the limestone body is found is the remnant of an old coca estate, and no streams are present in this area.
5. In the crushing/screening/washing operation, water would be used from the Arouca River. The effluent, dirty water etc. would be contained in settlement ponds which would be built especially to prevent pollution of the Arouca River.
The nearest house to the proposed area of initial quarry operations is about 3/4 of a mile, therefore noise and dust pollution would be minimal to the residents of the area.
With the present and future demand for this type of aggregate, this venture if managed properly could be economically successful.”
I have extracted the foregoing sections of the Survey to give some indication of its nature.
The plaintiff's Geologist was not advised of any visit to the site. He said in evidence:
“Since handing in the application I followed up the Report to the Town and Country Planning Division. All four other agencies indicated to mo that they would sit as a quarry advisory committee on the Report presented to Town and Country Planning and that they would visit the quarry and inform me of the date of the visit. I received no correspondence and was never advised although I enquired three times at Town and Country. I virtually begged them for a visit. I had no further discussions with Town and Country. I was never asked by the Ministry about anything in my application, I received no reason of intention not to grant planning permission. I was told on my visits that they would contact me. They never did.”
By letter dated the 28th February, 1980 the Minister of Finance refused permission to carry out the quarrying operations sought on the ground (stated in the said letter) that:
“the proposed development would not conform with the current policy of conservation being implemented in the Lopinot Valley. This policy is designed to –
(a) restrict the use of land beyond the limits of the village to agriculture and forestry;
(b) ensure that valley slopes are protected from problems of erosion to which this area is highly su8ceptible;
(c) maintain natural vegetative cover at elevations in excess of 700' in accordance with the policy of the Forrestry Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Lands and Fisheries; and
(d) preserve the existing character of Lopinot Village. Activities such as quarrying would haves an adverse environmental impact on development in this valley.”
The plaintiff is obviously not satisfied. It has been refused the opportunity to utilize its land to its financial benefit and has boon refused it in a way it contends wasp not fair. It therefore, comes to the court for inter alia a declaration that it is entitled to compensation under the Act and in addition, for a declaration that the decision of the Minister is illegal, void and of no effect.
On the Pleadings, the plaintiff claimed several heads of relief. At the trial however, it limited its case to two heads viz:
(1) The plaintiff is entitled under the Act to compensation resulting from the refusal of the Minister to grant planning permission aforesaid; and
(2) In the alternative, a declaration that the refusal of the Minister is invalid on the ground that the rules of natural justice have not been observed.
At the trial, the plaintiff called its Geologist and two other expert witnesses. The Defendant called an official from the Town and Country Planning Division and an expert witness. The plaintiff's Geologist testified that he did a survey of the plaintiff's land in October — December, 1978. The measure of his study was to see whether there was limestone on the plaintiff's land and if there was, to find out whether there was enough material in terms of quantity and quality to institute quarrying on an industrial economic scale. The Survey was the result of this study and in his evidence he reiterated certain aspects of the Survey. It may be said right here that the contents of the Survey were not really challenged as to the presence of limestone on the plaintiff's land, the need for limestone products in Trinidad and Tobago today and in the foreseeable future, and the economic potential of the proposed quarrying operations. The challenge on the evidence was to safety and environmental factar 3 and on this issue there was a conflict of opinion, Of course, it is not the court is function to decide this last issue and to order the grant or refusal of planning permission but the evidence is nevertheless relevant in order to ascertain whether the Minister, upon the information available to him or which might reasonably have been available to him, acted fairly in refusing the plaintiff's application. For it is well settled law that the Minister or any public authority cannot act arbitrarily or is possessed of an absolutely unfettered discretion in the exercise of public...
To continue reading
Request your trial