Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 64748
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T. R. Ravi, J
MOIDEEN KUTTY M.O – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 24078/2020
SRI BABU S. NAIR, SRI VIPIN NARAYAN, SRI P.S.ABDUL KAREEM, SRI.R.ABDUL AHAD, SRI M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, SRI A.HAROON RASHEED
The court mandated reconsideration of a quarrying permit renewal based on updated environmental assessments and potential risks, emphasizing adherence to guidelines.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Protection Act - Environmental clearance and quarrying permit - The petitioner, a quarry operator, challenged the rejection of his application for renewal of quarrying permit based on changed circumstances regarding landslide risks - The court directed the Senior Geologist to reconsider the application after hearing all parties involved. (Paras 2, 7, 8)
(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized the need for proper consideration of environmental impacts and adherence to guidelines in mining operations. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was issued an environmental clearance and quarrying permit, which were valid for three years. The renewal application was rejected due to concerns about landslides and seepage in nearby residences.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the Senior Geologist to reconsider the renewal application within one month, ensuring all parties are heard.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the environmental clearance and the potential risks associated with quarrying in a fragile area.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Senior Geologist must consider the changed circumstances and the expert report before making a decision on the renewal application.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of with directions.
JUDGMENT
Common questions arise for consideration in these writ petitions and hence they are heard and disposed of together. WPC No. 9764 of 2020
2. The petitioner is a quarry operator, who had been issued with an environmental clearance on 26.04.2018 followed by a quarrying permit on 06.06.2018. The environmental clearance and the quarrying permit have been produced as Exts.P1 & P2 in writ petition. Ext.P1 says that the maximum period of excavation shall not exceed 3 years and the validity of the clearance is for 3 years.
Ext.P2 quarrying permit was valid till 05.06.2019. There were objections to the quarry being operated from the local residents and the petitioner had filed WP(C) No.38775/2018 seeking Police protection. This Court by judgment dated 18.12.2018 directed the Police to give adequate and effective protection for pursuing the quarrying operation in so far as Exts.P1 & P2 are valid. In paragraph 6 of the judgment this Court had noticed the report of the District Collector stating that there is no chance for any landsliding and other adverse calamities in the quarrying site.
Ext.P3 is the judgment in WP(C) No.38775/2018. When the quarrying permit was due to expire, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 application seeking renewal. By Ext.P6 dated 24.12.2019, the Senior Geologist rejected the request. It is seen from the order that the petitioner had all the required clearances as per law. It is however stated that on inspecting the houses of persons residing down hill, it was seen that there was seepage in several places and it is felt that, if mining is permitted it can result in natural disasters like landslide. The petitioner challenged Ext.P6 order in WP(C) No.141/2020. By Ext.P7 judgment, this Court set aside Ext.P6 and remitted the case back to the Senior Geologist for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner placed the judgment before the Senior Geologist along with Ext.P8 representation dated 19.02.2020. By Ext.P9 order, the request was again rejected by the Senior Geologist. It is stated in the order that after the environmental clearances was granted on 26.04.2018, in 2018 & 2019, there were landslides in Malappuram District. It is further stated that on inspection of the residences in the downhill, it was noticed there was seepage behind the houses, which can be a reason for a natural disaster. It is further stated that the situation that was prevailing at the time of grant of environmental clearances and when the District Collector had filed the affidavit stating there is no likelihood of landslide, has considerably changed when the inspection was conducted on 12.12.2019. It is stated that no further site inspection is required. Ext.P9 has been challenged in this writ petition.
3. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.1/2020 producing Ext.P10 report of the District Disaster Management Authority, Malappuram on the basis of the inspection carried out on 26.08.2019. As per the report, the area where mining is sought to be done is in the moderate risk area as far as landslide is concerned. It is also stated that there had been no landslides during 2018 in this area. The authority has finally stated that the permission can be granted for mining in accordance with the mining plan.
4. The respondents 3 to 6, who were impleaded in the writ petition, have filed counter affidavits opposing the prayers made in the writ petition. W.P(C) No.24078 of 2020 has been filed by a resident of the area, challenging the environmental clearance and the quarrying permit that has been issued to the petitioner in W.P(C) No.9764 of 2020 and there are consequential prayers for stopping the mining and quarrying activities. The contention is that the area where quarrying is sought be done is fragile in nature and the possibility of landslide is huge. The petitioner has also filed Exhibit P14 petition before the State Disaster Management Authority on 23.2.2021 which is stated to be pending.
5. On 1.10.2
