SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Ker) 264

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. Nagaresh, J.
Mani – Appellant
Versus
Environmental Engineer – Respondents
W.P.(C) No.30938 of 2016
Decided on : 04-03-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: P. Vijayakumar, Baby Kuriakose, Georgekutty Mathew, Daisy A. Philipose, Jai George & P.Anitha
For the Respondent: Asst. Solicitor General of India (P. Vijayakumar ), C.G.Cs. (Tulasi Panicker & Rojo Joseph), Government Pleader (S.Kannan), T. Naveen, Binu Paul, R. Ranjith, Anil Thomas (T), K.V. Rashmi, P. Benjamin Paul & Vineeth Kuriakose

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities followed due process and considered environmental impact and statutory requirements before granting permits and clearances for quarrying operations.

Headnote:

quarrying - Environmental Clearance - Kerala Land Reforms Act - Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules - Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act - National Green Tribunal Act

Fact of the Case:

The Writ Petitions were filed against quarrying operations in Koovappady Village, challenging various permits and clearances issued by different authorities. The petitioners alleged damage to residential houses, suppression of facts in the application for Environmental Clearance, and illegal issuance of permits and licences.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the Writ Petitions after considering the arguments and evidence presented by both the petitioners and the respondents. The court found that the authorities had followed due process and granted permits and clearances in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations.

Issues: The issues included the legality of Environmental Clearance, quarrying permits, and licences, as well as the proximity of quarrying sites to residential areas, canals, bridges, and water reservoirs.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the authorities had considered the environmental impact and statutory requirements before granting permits and clearances. The court also emphasized the availability of alternate statutory remedies and the lack of evidence to support the petitioners' claims.

Final Decision: The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the court.

JUDGMENT :

1. These Writ Petitions are filed against quarrying operations in the land comprised in Survey Nos.397/4-1, 397/4-2, 397/7-2, 398/4, 398/5 and 397/6 in Koovappady Village of Kunnathunad Taluk. Hence, they are heard together and being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. W.P.(C) No.30938/2016 has been filed by a resident of Koovappady Panchayat challenging Ext.P1 quarrying permit issued by the Department of Mining and Geology, Government of Kerala and Ext.P6 Consent to Operate issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. The validity of Ext.P1 expired on 25.11.2016 and that of Ext.P6, on 31.03.2017. Hence, this Writ Petition has become infructuous.

3. W.P.(C) No.19908/2018 has been filed by two local residents challenging Ext.P2 Environmental Clearance (EC) given by the District Environmental Impact Assessments Authority (DEIAA). Ext.P9 D&O Licence issued by the Grama Panchayat is also under challenge, but the validity of the D&O Licence stands expired on 03.05.2018.

4. W.P.(C) No.29607/2018 has been filed by the petitioners challenging Ext.P1 NOC for quarrying, issued by the Executive Engineer, Periyar Valley Irrigation Project (PVIP). The validity of Ext.P1 stands expired on expiry of one year period from 11.07.2018. The validity of Ext.P3 Quarrying permit which is also under challenge, stands expired on 11.06.2019. Ext.P4 Consent to Operate issued by the Kerala Pollution Control Board, which is valid up to 31.03.2017, is also under challenge in this Writ Petition.

5. In W.P.(C) No.5839/2019, the petitioners seek to quash Ext.P3 NOC issued by the Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, KWA, Aluva and direct respondents 5 and 6 to ensure that registered rubber plantations exempted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act are not used for running granite quarry.

6. W.P.(C) No.18819/2019 has been filed challenging Ext.P2 Environment Clearance and Ext.P6 Explosive Licence in view of the pendency of Ext.P4 Charge Sheet. The parties to the Writ Petitions are referred to in this judgment, as they are arrayed in W.P.(C) No.19908/2018 (unless otherwise specified), for convenience.

7. In W.P.(C) No.19908/2018, the petitioners would state that they are residing near the proposed quarry in Koovappady Village, which is posing a threat to the residential houses of the petitioners and others. The 5th respondent-Project Proponent was conducting granite quarry for several years in the neighbourhood. Due to heavy blasting, houses including those of the petitioners were damaged. The 5th respondent applied for Environmental Clearance (EC) for continuing the operation of quarry suppressing relevant facts. Existence of irrigation canals, bridges, water reservoirs etc. were suppressed in the application for Environmental Clearance (EC). Existence of pending litigation was suppressed in EC application. Though the petitioners and others raised valid objections against grant of environmental clearance, the 1st respondent District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA), Ernakulam issued Ext.P2 EC. The Panchayat authorities granted licence to the unit, on an incomplete application. Hence, Ext.P2 EC and Ext.P9 D&O licence are liable to be set aside.

8. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.19908/2018 are the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.29607/2018. In W.P.(C) No.29607/2018, the petitioners contended that an irrigation canal is passing within 190 m. of the quarrying site. There are six bridges over the canal within a radius of 1 km. There are two public water resources of Kerala Water Authority within a radius of 400 m. Ext.P1 NOC has been issued by the Executive Engineer illegally, ignoring all these facts. No norms are laid down by the Government for grant of NOC for running quarries near canals, water tanks, bridges etc. Originally, the Second proviso to Rule 10 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 required a minimum distance of 100 metres from residential houses, public roads etc. for running granite quarry. The rules were illegal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top