Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41527
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
DAVID P.V., – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, – Respondent
WP(C)/26220/2021
ENOCH DAVID, SIMON JOEL, S.SREEDEV, RONY JOSE, LEO LUKOSE, SUZANNE KURIAN, CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL
The court upheld the principle that existing lawful applications must be processed despite new distance norms, emphasizing the importance of due process and compliance with prevailing legal frameworks.
Headnote:
Quarrying - Writ Petition - KMMC Rules 2015 - The court interpreted the KMMC Rules and National Green Tribunal orders concerning quarrying leases, directing compliance with existing laws without imposing new distance requirements.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought directions for the issuance of a quarrying lease, arguing compliance with required consents as per Rule 33(2) of the KMMC Rules, despite a National Green Tribunal order mandating a 200m distance from residences.
Issues: Whether the petitioner’s application for a quarrying lease should be processed despite the distance requirements stipulated by the National Green Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that existing approvals and the Supreme Court's directions necessitated the petitioner’s application to be processed in accordance with the law, overriding previous tribunal orders that lacked due process.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to finalize the application for quarrying lease according to law.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of November 2021 This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the
1st respondent to complete the process for issuance of quarrying lease to the petitioner, without reference to the distance conditions specified in the order dated 21.07.2020 of the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A.No.304/2019.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had secured Letter of Intent and had also procured all the licences/consents and clearances as required in law. It is submitted that going by the mandate of Rule 33(2) of the KMMC Rules, 2015 the 1st respondent is duty bound to execute quarrying lease once the applicant obtains all required consents.
3. The National Green Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi had passed an order directing that a distance of 200ms is to be maintained between quarries and nearby residences/inhabited areas. The said order was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C).No. 15305 of 2020 and connected cases and interim directions had been issued stating that where a quarrying lease/ permit is issued under the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules , 2015 which is valid and current as on 21.07.2020, that is the date of the National Green Tribunal's order, which do not fulfill the new distance norms, status quo shall be maintained. However, with regard to pending applications and renewal applications including application for Environmental Clearance, PCB consent, Explosive licence, Local Body licence etc., such applications need not be rejected solely on the ground of non fulfillment of the new distance norms. However, it was made clear that in case of the applications for fresh grant of the quarrying permits/quarrying leases or applications for renewal of quarrying permits/leases, which do not fulfil the above said impugned distance criteria stipulated in the order of the tribunal, such requests need not be granted for the time being.
4. The writ petitions were finally heard and allowed by judgment dated 21.12.2020. The order of the NGT was set aside and the NGT was directed to dispose of the representations of respondents 3 to 115 afresh after notice, by way of publication, to those who are affected by the prescription of the stringent distance criteria for permission for quarrying. The said judgment is reported inState of Kerala v. Central Pollution Control Board [2021 (1) KLT 1]. From the said judgment, an appeal had been preferred and the directions of the learned Single Judge had been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, SLPs have been filed before the Apex Court and Civil Appeals had been disposed of by proceedings dated 25.10.2021. The said judgment is reported asMunicipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha [2021 (6) KLT 133]. The Apex Court held that there is power in the National Green Tribunal to take up matters suo motu and pass orders as well.
It was further held as under:-
“In light of the issue answered by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.12122-12123 of 2018 and connected cases titled as “Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai Vs. Ankita Sinha & Ors.” reported in 2021 (12) SCALE 184, it would be appropriate to permit the appellant(s) to raise all contentions/objections as may be available and permissible in law before the National Green Tribunal (In short “the Tribunal”) in the first place. The Tribunal may consider those contentions/objections and record reasons for accepting or rejecting the same, so that the appellant(s), if dis-satisfied, may have further remedy of appeal(s) before this Court.
In other words, all contentions raised in the present appeal(s) on these aspects, including on merits are left open, to be considered by the Tribunal afresh.
We say so because the judgment rendered by this Court predicates that even if the Tribunal intends to initiate suo motu action, must give opportunity to the parties likely to be affected before
