The main legal point established in the judgment is that quarrying operations require Environmental Clearance, as mandated by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules of 1967 and 2015, and the State's undertaking before the Supreme Court did not override this requirement.

JUDGMENT :

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1. The constant struggle in today's world, between development and environment, is once more brought to focus in the instant writ petitions. Helpless citizens; neighbouring residents of quarries, the existence of which is imperative for construction activities, the visible face of development; are the petitioners. They are concerned with the alarming damage caused to their property and buildings and assail the functioning of quarries as a complete nuisance to their lives and label them illegal to further buttress their case; by taking up the cause of environment protection too.

2. In all the above writ petitions there was an interim order granted, staying the operation of the quarry, by the different party respondents in the three writ petitions. The first of such orders was issued in W.P. (C) No. 25153 of 2015 dated 14.09.2015, wherein a learned Single Judge noticed the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Najeeb M.K. vs. Shoukath Ali, 2015 (3) KLT 396 and interdicted the quarry operations carried on by the party respondent on the sole ground of the respondent having no Environmental Clearance [for brevity “EC”]. The very same learned Single Judge passed interim orders in the other writ petitions also, obviously, for reason of the party-respondents therein also not being in possession of EC.

3. The respondent in W.P. (C) No. 14838 of 2016 took up the matter in appeal, wherein it was argued that though G.O. (P) No. 144/2015/ID dated 05.10.2015 has been struck down by a Division Bench of this Court in Nature Lovers' Forum vs. State of Kerala, 2016 (1) KLT 75, the Government had undertook before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 30103 of 2015 that they would renew all quarrying licenses. The Division Bench, noticing the contentions of both parties, left liberty to the parties to move for necessary modification of the interim order and the Writ Appeal stood dismissed. Hence, all the above writ petitions are before this Court with the applications for modification of the interim order and on consent of parties, the writ petitions itself were heard.

4. Before looking at the facts, it has to be noticed that the bedrock of the arguments addressed by the quarry owners is the undertaking made by the Government before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The litigation which led to such undertaking has to be first noticed. A Division Bench of this Court had considered a public interest litigation [PIL] regarding the application of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 [for brevity “MMDR Act”] and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules of 1967 and of 2015 [for brevity respectively “MMCR of 1967” and “MMCR of 2015]. The batch of writ petitions; considered by the Division Bench in All Kerala River Protection Council vs. State of Kerala, 2015 (2) KLT 78 inter-alia raised the question of the need for an EC to existing permits/licenses/concessions for carrying on mining in lands having extent of less than 5 hectares. The Division Bench, in the said batch of writ petitions, had passed an interim order restraining the State Government from issuing any fresh permits till the matter was heard; on the concession made by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State. The interim order was passed based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 4 SCC 629.

5. In Deepak Kumar the challenge was against the auction notices of the Government of Haryana proposing to auction minor minerals in areas not exceeding 4.5 hectares. The challenge inter-alia was on the ground that it was an attempt to flout Environmental Impact Assessment (herein after ‘EIA’) Notification of 2006, by breaking the homogeneous area into pieces of less than 5 hectares. The Court noticed that the EIA Notification of 1994 did not apply to minor minerals and it was hence the EIA Notification of 2006 was brought out including minor minerals; requiring prior EC for lease