The definition of 'wetland' excludes 'paddy land' for regulatory purposes under environmental laws.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, to quash Exhibit-P3 notice issued by the 1st respondent.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to issue a certificate to the 5th respondent confirming that no water body or wetland as defined under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules,2017 under the Environment (Protection) Act,1986 as well as Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act,2008 is present within 50 meters of radius of land in Survey No.235/9-5 in Desom No.1 of Karumalloor Village in Paravur Taluk in Ernakulam District.

iii. Declare that the “paddy land” is not a “wetland” as per the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 and Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act,2008 and hence Exhibit-P3 issued by the 1st respondent stating that ‘as per the distance norm of the Central Pollution Control Board to establish petroleum retail outlet, the term “water body” includes wetland (paddy land as per revenue records)’, is illegal and liable to be quashed.

iv. Be further pleased to issue such other writ or order or direction as deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

v. to dispense with filing of translation of vernacular Documents.

(SIC)

2. Petitioner submitted an application to the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) to start a petroleum retail outlet and the IOC gave letter of intent to the petitioner. An NOC from the 1^st respondent is necessary for that purpose. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent without properly understanding the definition of ‘wetland’ as defined under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 as well as Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act,2008, issued Ext.P3 letter stating that paddy land is situated within 50 meters of dispensing unit, vent pipe and filling point of the proposed petroleum retail outlet. It is submitted that, as per the guidelines, wetland (Nilam as per revenue records) included and hence unable to take further action. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 is unsustainable. Hence this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. I also heard the learned Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent.

4. The short point raised by the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent misunderstood the definition of ‘wetland’ and ‘paddy land’. This Court perused Ext.P3 order. I think there is some force in the argument of the petitioner. This Court, in Ext.P5 judgment, considered this point. It will be better to extract paragraph 7 of Ext.P5:

“7. After considering the relevant aspects and hearing the respective counsels, I find merits in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As far as ‘Nanja’ is concerned, it is an undisputed fact that the same is a property where paddy is cultivated and whereas the definition of wetland, as contemplated in 2(xviii) of the Paddy Land Act, specifically excludes paddy land. Therefore, merely because, there are properties which are described as ‘Nanja’ within 50 meters distance of the property, the 3rd respondent could not have denied the certificate as sought by the petitioner.”

5. From the above it is clear that the paddy land is excluded from the definition of wetland. If that is the case, Ext.P3 is to be set aside. Therefore Ext.P3 can be set aside and there can be a direction to the 1^st respondent to reconsider the matter.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner:

1. Ext.P3 is set aside.

2. The 1^st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter, dehors the reason mentioned in Ext.P3, and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible,