IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J.
M.H.Vijayan, S/o. M.K. Haridas – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) no. 15520 of 2021, WP(C) no. 11060 of 2020
Decided on : 17-11-2021
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957-Atomic Minerals Concession Rules, 2016- Section 73 - Atomic Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 -Challenging the work of mechanised loading and transportation of mineral sand from Thottappally Pozhi mouth -whether the activity carried out by the respondents requires Environmental Clearance. The Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Rule 5(4) of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986, in public interest and in supersession of the notification dated 29.11.2019, has amended the EIA Notification, 2006.
Finding of the Court:
Section 34 of the Act, 2005 provides that for the purpose of assisting, protecting or providing relief to the community, in respect of any threatening disaster, the District Disaster Management Authority may take such steps as may be required or warranted to be taken in such situation. The steps taken by the Government and the orders passed by the District Authority are based on the advise/reports/recommendations of the technically expert bodies. The steps taken in this case are intended to avert any possible disaster in Pampa, Meenachil, Achankovil, Kuttanad and other areas. Therefore, the orders of the DDMA cannot be said to be ultra vires Section 34 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 -laws meant to govern the times of peace may become insufficient and even hurdles to tackle situations in extra ordinary times like war, calamities, catastrophes, pandemics and disasters. A democratic State should have the power to make such laws which would help to overcome such disasters with least hardship and loss of life and property of its citizens. Section 72 of the Act, 2005 gives overriding effect to the provisions of the Act notwithstanding anything inconsistent there with contained in any other law or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the Act, 2005 -Section 72 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, in effect, gives the general law of “Apat Dharma”, a statutory recognition. In times of disasters, the Disaster Management Act, 2005 will and should override the provisions of other laws, because the Act, 2005 is intended to protect the very life of the citizens, without which the words right, liberty or freedom and even the word Constitution will have no meaning.
Result: Writ petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
[WP(C) Nos.11060/2020 & 15520/2021]
Both these writ petitions are filed challenging the work of mechanised loading and transportation of mineral sand from Thottappally Pozhi mouth. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11060/2020 is a resident of Purakkad Grama Panchayat residing only five meters away from the Pozhi mouth near Thottappilly Beach. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.15520/2021 are also residents of Purakkad Grama Panchayat. Since both the writ petitions are filed based on same set of facts, they are heard together and being disposed of by a common judgment. The parties and exhibits are referred to in this judgment as they are arrayed/marked in W.P.(C) No.11060/2020, unless otherwise specified.
2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11060/2020 states that large scale mining activity is being carried out near the Pozhi mouth near Thottappally Beach. The 2nd respondent-Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. (KKML) invited Tenders for the work of mechanised loading and transportation of mineral sand from Thottappally Pozhi mouth without requisite licences and permits. The 4th respondent-Grama Panchayat has issued Ext.P4 Stop Memo. However, the mining activity continues. A large number of vehicles are coming to the area and transport mineral sand without any authority. The Panchayat authorities gave Ext.P8 complaint to the 6th respondent-Circle Inspector of Police. Still the illegal mining continues causing grave threat to the ecology and environment.
3. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.15520/2021 stated that during heavy monsoon rainfalls, the Pamba, Meenachil, Achankovil and Manimala rivers get flooded and the flood water enter the Kuttanad Region causing damage to the paddy land. The Government of India has constructed a 11 Km. long artificial water canal to drain flood water to Arabian Sea. The sand dunes created by the sea in coastal area act as a strong barrier to resist the impact of natural calamities. The sand dunes are rich of high density mineral sand like Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon, Monazite, Leucoxene, Sillimanite and Garnet. If these sand dunes are removed, then high tidal waves will reach the land causing damage to the area. However, Mining Companies are permitted to remove the sand dune at Pozhi mouth.
4. When heavy floods engulfed Kerala in 2018, the Central Water Commission, Hydrological Studies Organisation under the Government of India conducted a study and gave Ext.P6 report (in W.P.(C) No.15520/2021). Ext.P6 report contains no finding that it is the Pozhi mouth which causes floods in Purakkad area. The 9th and 10th respondents (in W.P.(C) No.15520/2021) are excavating and removing mineral sand violating environmental laws. The sand dunes being damaged, are the nestling grounds for Olive Ridley Turtles and Migratory Birds. The minerals being excavated include atomic minerals.
5. As per Article 297 of the Constitution, valuables in the territorial waters vest with the Union Government. It is being exploited without the permission of the Union Government and without obtaining any licence. The ‘Karimanal Khanana Virudha Ekopana Samithi’ submitted representations to the authorities and conducted peaceful Dharna, which were of no avail. The petitioners therefore seek to direct respondents 1 to 5 (in WP(C) No.15520/2021) not to permit any mining and excavation of mineral sand from the coastal areas of Purakkad Village in violation of laws, including Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011.
6. The 2nd respondent-Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. filed counter affidavit in WP(C) No.11060/2020. The respondent stated that flood water in Kuttanad area passes through Thottappally Spillway to the Arabian Sea. The Spillway blocks sea water from entering agricultural fields. After the devastating floods in Kerala in the year 2018, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation and IIT Madras recommended clearance of the Sand Bar downstream Thottappally Spillway and deepening and widening of the leading channel for depressing the flood problem in Ku
Bhagwan Dass v. State of U.P. (1976) 3 SCC 784
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and another v. State of Bihar and others (1990) 4 SCC 557
Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 4 SCC 629
Praneet K. v. University Grants Commission and others 2020 SCC Online SC 688
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.