Existing mining leases issued prior to 2016 do not necessitate environmental clearances despite subsequent affirmative amendments to law unless decreed otherwise upon lease renewal.

This writ petition has been filed challenging Exts. P3, P4 and P6 proceedings of the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (the ‘SEIAA’).

The facts in brief:-

2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of granite quarrying. It had been issued with a quarrying lease on 20.3.2012 for a period of 12 years under the erstwhile Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. The validity of the lease thus expired on 19.3.2024. The Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 did not insist upon an environmental clearance being obtained for quarrying/mining of minor minerals provided the area over which such mining is proposed was of an extent of less than five hectares. The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment in Deepak Kumar & others v. State of Haryana and others; (2012) 4 SCC 629 , issued certain directions to the State Governments and Union Territories regarding the framing of new mineral concession rules for minor minerals, keeping in mind the model rules framed by the Government of India and dealing with all aspects of mining of minor minerals. It was also directed that in the meanwhile, leases for mining of minor minerals (including renewal) in areas of less than five hectares shall be granted by the State/Union Territories only after getting environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar (supra), the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change issued an Office Memorandum bearing No. L-11011/47/2011-IA.II(M) dated 18.5.2012 to implement the directions issued by the Supreme Court. A question arose before this Court as to whether the directions issued in Deepak Kumar (supra), read with the provisions of the Office Memorandum dated 18.5.2012, would require holders of mining leases issued before 18.5.2012 to apply for and obtain an environmental clearance before carrying on with their operations. A Division Bench of this Court, in the judgment reported as All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala ; 2015(2) KLT 78 , took the view that holders of mining leases issued prior to the date of issuance of the EIA notification 2006 or before the issuance of the order dated 18.5.2012 by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change with regard to areas of less than five hectares require no environmental clearance and the requirement of environmental clearance will arise only when the lease comes up for renewal or re- issue. Therefore, the petitioner and several other operators (whose mining lease covered an area of less than five hectares) continued to operate their mines without environmental clearance. When the petitioner faced an issue with regard to the issuance of a D&O license by the local Panchayath on the ground that it had not obtained an environmental clearance, it approached this Court by filing W.P. (C)No.33540/2017 which was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment holding that, in the light of the law laid down by this Court in All Kerala River Protection Council (supra), no environmental clearance can be insisted upon in respect of its activities.

3. While matters stood thus, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change issued a notification dated 15.1.2016, amending the EIA Notification, 2006 and providing for the constitution of District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authorities. A question arose before the National Green Tribunal -SZ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NGT’ or as ‘the Tribunal’) as to whether, in the light of the notification dated 15.1.2016, the persons with existing mining leases for mining of minor minerals in an area of less than five hectares were required to take out an environmental clearance. In O.A.No.136/2017 (Tamil Nadu Small Mine Owners Federation v. The Secretary, MoEF & CC, New Delhi and Ors), it was held that, following the notification dated 15.1.2016, all existing leaseholders