SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 2148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Bhargavan Pillai S/o Krishna Kurup - Appellant
Versus
District Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 20083 of 2023
Decided On : 18-08-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : P.M. Rafeek, U. Nidhin, Gia Mathai Kandathil, Sara John
For the Respondents: Lejo Joseph George, K.R. Arun Krishnan, E.C. Kuriakose, S. Sreekumar, Deepa K. Radhakrishnan, Sanal C.S., Vishak K.V., Devishri R., M.P. Sreekrishnan, T.S. Maya, B.G. Bidan Chandran

Permits for quarrying activities require mandatory environmental clearance; failure to obtain such clearance renders the permits illegal.

Headnote:(A) Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 - Exemptions for Borrowing Ordinary Earth - The petitioners challenged the legality of quarrying permits issued for excavation in the absence of mandatory environmental clearance, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Noble M. Paikada, which emphasized sustainable development standards. Environmental clearance is a precondition for quarrying operations, and permits issued without it are deemed illegal. (Paras 1-2, 14-16)

(B) Sustainable Development - The court reiterated the necessity of adhering to environmental regulations to protect local environments and communities. (Paras 6-7)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought to stop excavation activities near 'Erichurili Mala' by the 7th respondent under a quarrying permit, claiming illegality due to lack of environmental clearance per applicable laws and circulars.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the quarrying permit was not confined to exempted works of the National Highway Authority, thus illegal without proper environmental clearance.

Issues: The key issue regarded the necessity of environmental clearance for the excavation and its lawful permits.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the issuance of quarrying permits without mandatory environmental clearance violates statutory requirements, underscoring the need for environmental protection.

Result: The quarrying permit was quashed, and respondents were directed to prevent further excavation activities.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's concerns over excavation impact. (Para 1)
2. 7th respondent's defense for quarrying permit. (Para 2)
3. judicial interpretation of environmental clearance requirements. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
4. impact of supreme court's clarificatory order. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. clarificatory order's applicability to contractors. (Para 11 , 12)
6. need for clarity on excavation requirements. (Para 13 , 14)
7. final ruling against 7th respondent's quarrying permit. (Para 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT :

C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioners, 3 in number, are residing in and around 'Erichurili Mala', a hillock at Kurumbala Village, Pathanamthitta. They are apprehensive of the large scale excavation of earth from the said hillock by the 7th respondent, who purchased that land recently. The excavation apprehended is in connection with the construction of Kottukulangara to Kollam highway bypass. Ext.P1 is a mass petition given to the Director of Mining. Ext.P2 is the quarrying permit issued to the 7th respondent permitting excavation and removal of ordinary earth from 43.20 Ares of land in Erichurili Mala. Although environmental clearance is mandatory, the 2nd respondent State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority ('SEIAA' for short) had issued Ext.P3 expressing no objection to grant exemption from obtaining environmental clearance for sourcing or borrowing of earth for the construction of the National Highway. Ext.P4 is a Circular issued by the Government of Kerala exempting the requirement of environmental clearance to borrow ordinary earth for highway related works and for construction of village roads and other government sponsored schemes. The petitioners would maintain that Ext.P4 Circular is illegal. Ext.P5 is a notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) dated 28.03.2020, granting exemption for certain cases from the requirement of environmental clearance, which was brought in by virtue of amendment to Appendix-IX of the EIA notification, 2006. Serial no. 6 therein is extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for the linear projects such as roads, pipelines etc. The exemption granted vide Ext.P5 was challenged before the National Green Tribunal by filing Original Application nos. 190/2020 and 68/2020. The National Green Tribunal observed that grant of blanket exemption for excavation of earth is against the norms of sustainable development. Ext.P6 is an O.M issued by the MoEF & CC, which is a clarification issued on the applicability of EIA notification, 2006, for excavation of ordinary earth from borrow area for linear projects. After deliberation by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) and based on its recommendations, and also in view of the direction of the National Green Tribunal, the Ministry decided that exemption from E.C for extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for linear projects shall be subject to Standard Operating Procedure enclosed to the Office Memorandum. The petitioner would maintain that the linear project of Kottukulangara to Kollam highway bypass is a project, which requires separate E.C for excavating earth. Ext.P7 is a letter issued by the 2nd petitioner to the 1st respondent pointing out the illegality in issuing Ext.P2 quarrying permit to the 7th respondent. Ext.P8 is a similar letter issued by the 2nd petitioner to the 2nd respondent pointing out the illegality in grant of Ext.P3 'No Objection'. Ext.P9 is an Order whereby the 4th respondent, Chairperson of the District Disaster Management Authority, has evacuated residents near to Athiramala due to heavy rainfall, which is produced to point out that the topography and landscape of 'Erichurili Mala' are similar to those of Athiramala. By Ext.P10 representation, the 2nd petitioner requested the 4th respondent Chairperson/District Collector, to take steps to stop the excavation of earth from 'Erichurili Mala'. Ext. P11 is a resolution passed by the 5th respondent to obtain a 'N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top