K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioners in the above Writ Petitions seek renewal of quarrying permit without insistence for an environmental clearance as provided under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (for brevity the Rules). The petitioners admittedly had been holding mining permits, which expired. The mining permits of both the petitioners expired in December, 2014. The order produced at Exhibit P1 in the respective Writ Petitions are said to have been renewal of earlier permits issued, without insisting for an environmental clearance, since the Government orders issued by the State in that respect permitted issuance of short-term mining permits even without any environmental clearance. In any event, when a further renewal was sought for, of Exhibit P1, the same was not considered in view of Exhibit P2 Order passed in a batch of Writ Petitions. In that batch of Writ Petitions the questions raised inter alia dealt with the insistence for environmental clearance certificates to existing permits/licenses/concessions. The interim order, based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, 2012 (1) KLT Suppl. 60 (SC) : (2012) 4 SCC 629, restrained, the State Government from issuing any fresh permits till the matter is heard, on the concession made by the learned Advocate General before the Division Bench. The said batch of Writ Petitions have now been disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in All Kerala River Protection Council vs. State of Kerala, 2015 (2) KLT 78.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Division Bench judgment, the environmental clearance certificate is to be insisted only for new permits/licenses. The specific case put forward by the petitioners is that even the Rules, brought into force in February 2015, by a proviso to Rule 12 exempts environmental clearance required under Rule 9 in the case of renewal of quarrying permits in respect of quarries which had a valid permit as on 09.01.2015. The petitioners' contentions are two-fold. One, that, if the petitioner's renewal application was considered at the proper time, i.e. in December, 2014, then the petitioner would have had an existing permit as on 09.01.2015, which he would have been entitled to renew without environmental clearance. An alternative plea has also been raised, with a challenge to the proviso to Rule 12 insofar as the date prescribed being arbitrary and discriminatory and devoid of any nexus with the intention sought to be achieved.

3. The controversy can be settled on a correct understanding of the Division Bench judgment in All Kerala River Protection Council (supra). The operative portion of the judgment lists out the conclusions of the Division Bench in the following manner:

"(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 is required. Notification dated 14.09.2006 contemplated obtaining environmental clearance only with regard to new projects/new activities.

(ii) Government Order dated 10.01.2014 cannot be relied on by the parties in view of the restraint order issued by the National Green Tribunal dated 27.09.2013 till such time the restraint order continues.

(iii) By amendment of Section 14 by Act 37 of 1986 making Section 4 applicable to minor minerals also the provision contained in Section 4 shall be applicable to mining operations by a person holding mining lease or any other kind of mineral concession. It cannot be accepted that mining operation with effect from 10.02.1987 cannot be continued by a person holding any other mineral concession apart from mining lease.

(iv) Judgment of the Apex Court in Deepak Kumar's