Compliance with environmental clearance procedures is mandatory for quarrying applications located near wildlife sanctuaries under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules.

J U D G M E N T

Petitioner has applied to the fourth respondent for a quarrying lease in terms of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (the Rules). The quarrying site of the petitioner is located within 10 Kms of “Malabar Wild Life Sanctuary”. Placing reliance on Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India (MoEF), the fourth respondent refused to consider the application submitted by the petitioner taking the stand that the petitioner needs to obtain clearance of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife constituted under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (Standing Committee) for the purpose of seeking quarrying lease in respect of a quarry site situated within 10 kms from the Wildlife Sanctuaries. The Office Memorandum of the MoEF insists clearance from the Standing Committee for all quarrying operations within 10 kms from National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. According to the petitioner, “Malabar Wild Life Sanctuary” is not a notified Wildlife Sanctuary under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and he, therefore, preferred W.P.(C)No.28036 of 2019 before this court for a declaration to that effect.

2. In the meanwhile, interdictory orders have been issued by the Mining and Geology Department of the State Government to persons who are operating granite quarries within 10 kms from the various Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Parks in the State and who have not secured clearance of the Standing Committee for the said purpose. A few among the said quarry operators challenged the Office Memorandum of MoEF dated 08.08.2019 before this court in a batch of writ petitions. W.P.(C)No.28036 of 2019 was disposed of along with the said cases as per Ext.P10 judgment. In terms of the said judgment, this Court repelled the challenge against the Office Memorandum of MoEF dated 08.08.2019. Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that the petitioners in those cases excluding the petitioner herein were operating quarries after obtaining all other permissions and licences, this court directed the Government of Kerala to forward the Environmental Clearances and other documents relating to them to the MoEF for onward transmission to the Standing Committee for considering whether they should be given clearance, within fifteen days. As per the said judgment, this court also directed the MoEF to place the documents forwarded by the State Government, as directed, before the Standing Committee within one week thereafter and directed the Standing Committee to take a final decision in the matter within two months thereafter. It was clarified by this court in the said judgment that the interdictory orders issued to the petitioners other than the petitioner herein will remain in force only during the period within which the Standing Committee was directed to take a final decision in the matter. As far as the the writ petition filed by the petitioner is concerned, this court did not grant the relief sought for. Instead, this court disposed of the said writ petition also, observing that the directions in the judgment will apply to him also since his application for quarrying lease has not been considered in the light of the Office Memorandum of the MoEF dated 08.08.2019 which was impugned in the remaining writ petitions. It was, however, clarified in the judgment that the petitioner shall not be granted quarrying lease until the proceedings directed in the judgment are completed or the period fixed for the procedure expires.

3. It is alleged by the petitioner that though the directions contained in Ext.P10 judgment have been complied with by the State Government, the application for quarrying permit submitted by the petitioner is not being considered by the fourth respondent despite expiry of the timeline prescribed in terms of the judgment for compliance of the directions. It is also alleged by the petitioner that at the same time, the interdictory ord