IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
Sudheesh A.T., S/o. Thankachan – Appellant
Versus
Director of Mining And Geology Department, Government of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. environmental clearance conditions for mining projects (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on the applicability of supreme court orders (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's interpretation of supreme court directives (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. quashing of unnecessary wildlife clearance requirements (Para 10) |
COMMON JUDGMENT :
In this batch of 21 cases, all the writ petitioners essentially seek the same relief, which pertains to a condition incorporated in the Environmental Clearance issued by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority ('SEIAA' for short). One such condition, incorporated in the case of petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28314/2024, is extracted here below:
“Condition No.5: Since, the project is located within 10km of Peechi Vazhani Wild Life Sanctuary and Chimmony Wild Life Sanctuary, the project proponent has to obtain Wild Life Clearance from the SCNBWL as per the OM dated 17/05/20225 of MoEF & CC as per the directions in the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dated 26/04/2023 in I.A.13177 of 2022 before the commencement of mining”.
In respect of a similar condition imposed in the Environmental Clearance issued by SEIAA, the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed a recent Order dated 29.0
Environmental clearances requiring wildlife clearance within a specified distance must comply with established guidelines, and petitioners are not liable for additional wildlife clearance as mandated....
EC for blasting quarries quashed in abeyance for non-adherence to CPCB's 200m distance criterion from dwellings, mandating re-appraisal of hydrogeological, biodiversity risks despite fresh applicatio....
The insistence in Ext.P8 office memorandum for prior clearance from the Standing Committee for projects within 10 kilometres from National Parks was unsustainable in law as it did not follow the proc....
The main legal point established is that the authority's decision to prohibit quarrying operations, despite obtaining necessary clearances, was not legally justified.
Protection of Ecology – Necessity to have ESZs is to provide a buffer zone around Protected Areas – Rights of villagers residing in Protected Areas are required to be settled in accordance with provi....
Point of law : Right of quarrying - Under sub-rule (1) of Rule 32, it is provided no person in possession of patta lands in Karnataka State shall undertake quarrying operations in his land for minor ....
Environmental Clearance cancellation invalid absent notified siting criteria for mining-forest proximity; operations beyond permitted plots violate EC terms, warranting fresh review excluding title d....
Point of law : Rule 33(2) provides that on receipt of an Approved Mining Plan and Environmental Clearance for the precise area and on production of all other statutory licences/clearances/No Objectio....
Office Memoranda extending DEIAA-granted mining EC validity upheld as interim measures for SEIAA re-appraisal; non-reappraised ECs invalid post-deadline, enforcing compliance with environmental safeg....
Environmental Clearances must align with Supreme Court directives to prevent degradation and require thorough reappraisal by SEIAA.
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.