The insistence in Ext.P8 office memorandum for prior clearance from the Standing Committee for projects within 10 kilometres from National Parks was unsustainable in law as it did not follow the procedure laid down in Rule 5 of the Rules.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner is a proprietary concern. They were operating a granite building stone quarry at Edapatta in Malappuram District on the strength of Ext.P1 Environmental Clearance issued to them on 01.12.2017 in terms of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (EIA Notification, 2006) issued under the Environment (Protection) Act,1986 (the Act). The quarry of the petitioner is located near the Silent Valley National Park established under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. On 18.10.2019, the seventh respondent interdicted the operation of the quarry of the petitioner on the ground that they need to obtain clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (the Standing Committee) constituted under S.5B of the Wildlife (Protection) Act also for operating their quarry since it is located within 10 kilometres from Silent Valley National Park. Ext.P6 is the notice issued by the seventh respondent to the petitioner in this regard. In Ext.P6 notice, it is stated that the said communication is issued in the light of Ext.P8 office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India dated 8.8.2019 insisting clearance from the Standing Committee for mining projects within 10 kilometres from the National Parks. Ext.P6 notice is under challenge in the Writ Petition. The case set out by the petitioner in the Writ Petition is that restrictions in the nature of one provided for in Ext.P8 office memorandum can be imposed only in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Environment (Protection) Rules (the Rules), and the quarry of the petitioner being one located beyond the eco-sensitive zone around the Silent Valley National Park covered by Ext.P10 draft notification issued under S.3 of the Act and Rule 5 of the Rules, there cannot be any impediment in law for operating the same.

2. A statement has been filed by the fourth respondent in the matter reiterating the contents of Ext.P6 notice. In addition, it is pointed out in the said statement that it was found in the enquiry conducted pursuant to the complaint lodged by the eighth respondent that the petitioner has been conducting blasting in the quarry in the early hours of the day and therefore, it has been decided to interdict the operation of the quarry on that ground also.

3. Heard Adv.Santhosh Mathew, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv.V.R.Rakesh, the learned Central Government Counsel, Adv.Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) and Adv.K.Mohanakannan, the learned counsel for respondents 8 and 9.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the case of the petitioner that restrictions in the nature of one provided for in Ext.P8 office memorandum can be imposed only in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It was argued by the learned counsel that insofar as the quarry of the petitioner is located beyond the eco-sensitive zone covered by Ext.P10 draft notification issued under S.3 of the Act, and in the absence of any restriction in the activity undertaken by the petitioner beyond the eco-sensitive zone covered by the said draft notification, there cannot be any impediment in law in operating the quarry of the petitioner. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Goa Foundation v. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 590 (Goa Foundation (2)), in support of the said argument. It was also argued by the learned counsel that Ext.P8 office memorandum applies only to proposals for new projects and development activities within 10 kilometres from National Parks.

5. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forests) submitted that prior to Ext.P8 office memorandum, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India has issued an office memorandum on 02.12.2009 providing that prior clearance from the Standing Committee is required for projects and development activities within 10 kilometres from National Park