The court emphasized the importance of considering all contentions and objections before passing adverse orders and held that ex-parte peremptory orders without giving opportunity to affected parties are to be treated as effaced from the records.

JUDGMENT :

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

1. These writ petitions are filed seeking directions to respondents 1 and 2 to take steps for consideration of the applications submitted by the petitioners for quarrying permits/permissions without referring to the distance conditions specified in Ext.P8 order dated 21.07.2020 in O.A. No. 304/2019 of the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had submitted applications for Letters of intent as well as the necessary permissions and leases with regard to conduct of quarrying operations. It is submitted that the applications had been submitted much prior to the order issued by the National Green Tribunal suggesting a distance criteria other than the one provided in the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 as well as the Rules recommended by the Central Pollution Control Board.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that challenging Ext.P8 order, writ petitions had been filed before this Court and interim directions had been issued stating that where a quarrying lease permit is issued under the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 which is valid and current as on 21.07.2020, that is the date of Ext.P8 order, which do not fulfill the new distance norms, status quo shall be maintained. However, with regard to pending applications and renewal applications including application for Environmental Clearance, PCB consent, Explosive licence, Local Body licence etc. such applications need not be rejected solely on the ground of non fulfillment of the new distance norms. However, it was made clear that in case of the applications of fresh grant of the quarrying permits/quarrying leases or applications for renewal of quarrying permits/leases, which do not fulfil the above said impugned distance criteria stipulated in the order of the tribunal, then such request need not be granted for the time being.

4. The writ petitions were finally heard and allowed by judgment dated 21.12.2020. Ext.P8 order of the NGT was set aside and the NGT was directed to dispose of the representations of respondents 3 to 115 afresh after notice by way of publication to those who are affected by the prescription of the stringent distance criteria for permission for quarrying. The said judgment is reported in State of Kerala vs. Central Pollution Control Board, 2021 (1) KLT 1. From the said judgment, an appeal had been preferred and the directions of the learned Single Judge had been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, SLPs have been filed before the Apex Court and Civil Appeals had been disposed of by proceedings dated 25.10.2021. The said judgment is reported as Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha, 2021 (6) KLT 133. The Apex Court held that there is power in the National Green Tribunal to take up matters suo motu and pass orders as well.

5. It was further held as under:

“In light of the issue answered by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 12122-12123 of 2018 and connected cases titled as Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha and Others, 2021 (12) SCALE 184, it would be appropriate to permit the appellants to raise all contentions/objections as may be available and permissible in law before the National Green Tribunal (In short “the Tribunal”) in the first place. The Tribunal may consider those contentions/objections and record reasons for accepting or rejecting the same, so that the appellants, if dissatisfied, may have further remedy of appeals before this Court.

In other words, all contentions raised in the present appeals on these aspects, including on merits are left open, to be considered by the Tribunal afresh.

We say so because the judgment rendered by this Court predicates that even if the Tribunal intends to initiate suo motu action, must give opportunity to the parties likely to be affecte