Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard Sri.Devan Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

2. This writ appeal has been filed against order dated 7th July, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge refusing modification of the interim order dated 25th March, 2015.

3. The 6th respondent, who is the appellant before us, had filed an application seeking modification of an interim order by which learned Single Judge has restrained the 6th respondent from carrying on quarrying operation. The 6th respondent has filed the application for modification of the interim order on the strength of a renewed permit. 6th respondent's case is that the permit which was already granted to him was renewed by an order dated 6/5/2015. He submits that learned Single Judge committed error in refusing to modify the interim order. He submits that on the strength of the proviso to Rule 12 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, the appellant was entitled to carry on quarrying operation without there being any environmental clearance. He submits that the Division Bench judgment of this court in All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala (2015 (2) KLT 78), has not been correctly read by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the application. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there being no challenge to Rule 12 or its proviso in the All Kerala River Protection Council's case (supra), the proviso entails and permits the appellant to carry out the quarrying operation. He submits that the Division Bench judgment in the aforesaid case of All Kerala River Protection Council's case (supra) cannot be read in other matters.

4. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and has perused the records. Rule 12 as was noticed in the Division Bench judgment provided as follows:-

"12. Renewal of a quarrying permit: On receipt of an application in Form A, a quarrying permit may be renewed for a further period of two years but not exceeding one year at a time after complying with the procedure provided for grant of quarrying permit under Rule 9 and subject to the production of all other statutory licenses/clearances/No Objection Certificate, etc., from other statutory authorities concerned.

Provided that, the environmental clearance required under Rule 9 shall not be insisted, in the case of renewal of quarrying permits, in respect of quarries which had a valid permit as on 9th day of January, 2015.

Provided further that the approved mining plan required under Rule 9 shall not be insisted till 1st April, 2016 for renewal of a quarrying permit".

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the first proviso to Rule 12 has now been further amended w.e.f. 23rd May, 2015, which is to the following effect;

"Provided that, the environmental clearance required under Rule 9 shall not be insisted, in the case of renewal of quarrying permits, in respect of granite (building stone) quarries which had a valid permit during the financial year 2014-15".

6. All aspects of the matter pertaining to the quarrying operation by leases and permits came for consideration in the batch of writ petitions before the Division Bench in All Kerala River Protection Council's case (supra). Rule 2015, which had been in force by that time, as well as the provisions of Environmental Protection Act, 1986, the notification dated 14/9/2006 and orders issued by the Central Government came for consideration. The conclusion of the Division Bench has also been recorded in para 82 of the judgment, which is to the following effect.

"82. In view of the foregoing discussion, we come to the following conclusions.

(i) In case where quarrying/mining/lease which were existing on the date of issuance of Notification dated 14.09.2006 or on the date of issue of the order dated 18.05.2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests with regard to area less than 5 hectares no environmental clearance with regard to extraction of minor mineral