IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S. MANIKUMAR, SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ.
P.T. Davis – Appellant
Versus
The Director of Mining and Geology, Thiruvananthapuram – Respondent
W.A. Nos. 1204, 1205, 1215 of 2019
Decided On : 26-09-2022
Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Sections 81(1) and (3) - Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - Writ Appeal - Issue relates to an order of lease granted to the Managing Partner - Captioned appeals are filed against common judgment rendered by learned single Judge in W.P. (C) respectively - Validity of an interim order passed in favour of a party stands reversed in event of a final decision going against party successful at interim stage.
Findings of the Court:
It is clear from Exhibit P9 impugned order that in view of findings rendered by Director of Mining and Geology, area specified there under is excluded only from quarrying operations - Court are of undoubted opinion that learned single Judge was right in allowing W.P. (C) and another and interfering with Exhibit P9 impugned order - Considering facts, In view of findings rendered above, connected appeals, which are only consequential to findings generated above, have no legal or factual sustenance.
Result: Writ Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
1. The captioned appeals are filed against the common judgment dated 08.03.2019 rendered by the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) Nos. 26275, 26272 of 2015 and 25013 of 2014 respectively. Writ appeal No. 1215 of 2019 is fled by a partnership firm, which was the 7th respondent in W.P. (C) No. 25013 of 2014; whereas, the other two appeals are filed by the Managing Partner of the said partnership firm, who is the petitioner in the other two connected writ petitions.
2. By the impugned common judgment, the learned single Judge allowed W.P. (C) No. 25013 of 2014 filed by Sri. K.B. Suman and Sri. N.M. Hassan Mohammed, who are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in W.A No. 1215 of 2015. The subject issue relates to an order of lease granted to the Managing Partner of M/s. Thomson Metals dated 04.05.2011 by the State Government, and Exhibit P2 quarrying lease registered consequent to Exhibit P1 order of grant. The said writ petitioners are the neighboring property owners of the properties against which the lease was granted. Evidently, as per Exhibit P1, lease was granted for quarrying Granite Building Stones over an area of 6.4561 Hectares of private land comprised in resurvey Nos. 208/1, 208/3, 209/1, 210/2, 210/3, 210/4, 210/5 in Block No. 18 and 58 of the Muthalamada -II Village, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad, for a period of 12 years from the date of execution of the quarrying lease deed under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 and as per the survey map issued by the Tahsildar, Chittur and submitted by the applicant subject to the conditions mentioned therein. It was on the basis of the said grant, Exhibit P2 lease deed was executed on 13.05.2011 by and between the Geologist, District Office of the Department of Mining and Geology, Palakkad, respondent No. 6 and the Managing Partner of M/s. Thomson Metals.
3. Apparently, as per paragraph 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 bearing No. SO 1533 dated 14.09.2006 issued under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, prior Environmental Clearance (EC) is required to conduct quarrying operations. It specifies that the following project activities shall require prior environmental clearance from the concerned regulatory authority, which shall hereinafter referred to as the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forest for matters falling under category ‘A’ in the Schedule and at State Level the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) of the issues falling under category ‘B’ in the said Schedule, before any construction work or preparation of the land by the Project Management, except for securing the land, is started on the project or activity:
(ii) Expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to that notification with addition of capacity beyond the limits specified for the concerned sector, that is, projects or activities which cross the threshold limits given in the Schedule, after expansion or modernization.
(iii) Any change in product - mix in an existing manufacturing unit included in Schedule beyond the specified range.
4. Admittedly the project of the appellants is category ‘B’ to which clearance of the State authority is required. In the Schedule prescribed as per paragraph 2, the list of projects or activities requiring prior environment clearance is specified. Serial No. 1(a) dealing with ‘mining of minerals’ which is applicable to the case on hand, and it is clear that for the extraction of natural resources exceeding 5 Hectares of mining lease area in respect of non-coal mine lease, prior environment clearance is required at the stage of renewal of mine lease, for which application shall be made upto two years prior to the date due for renewal; further a period of two years with effect from 4th April, 2011 is provided for obtaining environmental clearance for all those
Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Others
Prem Chandra Agarwal and Another vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and Others
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. State of M.P. and Others
State of West Bengal and Others vs. Banibrata Ghosh and Others
It is a well settled principle that once a final order is passed, all earlier interim orders merge into final order, and interim orders cease to exist.
Point of law: while passing the impugned orders, the authorities by taking all the relevant facts, passed the present impugned orders, and as per the rules, more specifically as per Rule 35(b) M.C. R....
Point of law: Undisputed evidence to show that as per revenue records the existence of buildings and house sites, whereas in the case on hand, no revenue records have been produced to show that there....
The court emphasized the importance of considering the potential impact of quarrying on the surrounding ecosystem and wildlife, as well as the existence of an alternate remedy under Rule 36-C. The de....
The court affirmed that the issuance of a No Objection Certificate for quarry lease was valid as the petitioners had no title over the disputed land, emphasizing adherence to established guidelines.
Failure of lessee - Rule 29 of rules provide for payments to be made under said rules – Rule 29 lays down conditions subject to which quarrying leases are to be granted.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and harmonious construction of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the Kerala Minor Mineral Conce....
Suspension of mining operations cannot be directed by NGT where Quarry Lease had been granted in conformity with provisions of law.
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.