1. The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P1, P3 and P5, i.e. Letter of Intent, Environmental Clearance and Quarrying Permit respectively, issued in favour of the 6th respondent.

2. Petitioners submit that the issuance of Ext.P1 letter of intent is arbitrary and illegal in as much as going by Rule 8 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as KMMC Rules, 2015) it is mandatory on the part of the 3rd respondent to conduct a site inspection before issuing a letter of intent. Since no inspection was conducted, the objectionable sites from the site of quarry were not noticed before issuing Ext.P1. Petitioners would submit that in Ext P3 there is a mention that the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) has also reported that there is a house in the locality within 165 metres from the boundary of the quarry and the project proponent shall produce the certificate from the Village Officer to the effect that there are no residential building within 200 metres from the boundary of the quarry. Petitioners submit that Ext.P4 certificate issued by the Village Officer is against the real factual situation. Later on Ext.P5 quarrying permit was also issued in respect of the quarry run by the 6th respondent. It is aggrieved by the issuance of Exts.P1, P3 and P5 that the petitioners have approached this Court.

3. One of the specific contention raised by the petitioners is that there are public water reservoirs near the quarry, but the existence of these water tanks was not noticed while issuing Exts.P1, P3 and P5. Petitioners relying on Section 40(2) of the Kerala Irrigation and Conservation of Water Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 2003’) and the judgment dated 01.11.2017 in WP (C) No. 23565 of 2017 submit that a No Objection Certificate from the Irrigation Department is necessary before issuing an EC or a quarrying permit. Petitioners also rely on the judgment of this Court in Sobin P.K. vs. District Geologist, Ernakulam and Others, 2020 (1) KHC 1 (DB) in support of their contention.

4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 6th respondent, wherein it is contended that the environmental clearance and the permits were issued strictly in accordance with law and on finding that there are no objectionable structures near the site of quarrying. As regards the water reservoirs mentioned in the writ petition, the 6th respondent would contend that those are not structures constructed by the Irrigation Department and not within one kilometre radius of the quarry, and therefore no permission from the Irrigation Department is necessary and there is no violation of Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003. The 6th respondent would further contend that since the water tank is not constructed either by the Kerala Water Authority or by the Irrigation Department, no permission under Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003 is required. It is further contended that as regards the environmental clearance granted, the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to approach the National Green Tribunal, challenging the same.

WP (C) No. 4655 of 2024

5. The above writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 and to take necessary action as provided under Kerala Irrigation and Conservation of Water Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2003’). The said writ petition is filed by the 1st petitioner in WP (C) No. 30737 of 2022 against the quarry run by the 3rd respondent, who is the 6th respondent in WP (C) No. 30737 of 2022, mainly contending that there is violation of Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003. The specific case of the petitioner is that there are three public water tanks near the quarrying site and in case blasting operations are undertaken there is a chance for the water tanks to be destroyed and therefore only after obtaining an NOC as mandated as per Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003 that necessary permissions