BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Friday the 10^th day of January, 2025.

Appeal No. 43 of 2022(SZ)

(Through Video Conference)

IN THE MATTER OF

1. Ratheesh Karattu, aged 45 years, S/o R.K. Vasu, Rayaroth House, Tholamra PO, Peravoor, Kannur District, Kerala - 670 673.

2. Nidhin C.M, aged 29 years, S/o Madhusoodanan, Chandroth House, Tholamra PO, Peravoor, Kannur District, Kerala - 670 673.

...Appellant(s)

Versus

1. Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh, Ali Ganj, New Delhi- 110 003.

2. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Rep by its Chairman, KSRTC Bus Terminal Complex, 4th Floor, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala- 695 001.

3. State Expert Apraisal Committee, Rep by its Member Secretary, 4th Floor, KSRTC Bus Terminal complex Thampanoor, Thiruvanadapurm District, Kerala- 695 001.

4. The Administrator, State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, KSRTC Bus Terminal Complex, 4th Floor, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala- 695 001.

5. K.K. Pemkumar Kolanthara (H), Melmuringodi P.O, Manathana, Kannur District, Kerala- 670 673.

6. State Disaster Management Authority, Rep by its Member Secretary, Vikas Bhawan P.O, Observatory Hills, Opposite Kanakakkunnu palace, Nanthancodu, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695 033.

...Respondent(s)

For Appellant (s): Mr. Harish Vasudevan.

For Respondent(s): Ms. E. Rufina for Ms. Y. Kavitha for R1. Mr. Ramesh Kumar for Mr. G. Prabhu for R2 to R4.

Mr. R. Parthasarathy Sr. Adv. a/w Ms. Tanushree Arvind and Ms. Simran Srinivasan for R5.

CORAM HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER

JUDGMENT

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

1. The appellants have challenged the Environmental Clearance granted on 11.07.2022 to the 5^th respondent for quarrying granite building stone. The 5^th respondent, who is engaged in the business of quarrying and mining in Kannur District has obtained the impugned Environmental Clearance for an area of 1.4621 ha., in Re.Sy. No. 1/100, 1 and 9 of Tholambra Village.

2. It is alleged by the appellants that the 5^th respondent had deliberately and purposely misrepresented the facts and wilfully suppressed the vital facts in the Form- I(M) application. The appellants have challenged the grant of Environmental Clearance widely on the following grounds:

2.1. DSR

2.1.1. According to the appellants any application for obtaining the Environmental Clearance must be processed only in accordance with the DSR. It is stated that there is no DSR prepared for the District of Kannur and the namesake DSR prepared in the year 2016 did not contain any scientific proper information that fulfil the criteria and intention of EIA Notification, 2006.

2.2. Cluster Certificate

2.2.1. The appellants relied on the certificate issued by the Geologist of Department of Mining and Geology, Kannur dated 17.07.2019 which states that two quarries are seen within 500m from the quarry of the project proponent, herein, therefore, there is a cluster when the distance between the one lease is less than 500m of the other lease. It is stated that as per clause IV of appendix-11, the individual leaseholders in clusters can use the Environmental Clearance granted for the clusters and the EIA and EMP shall be prepared for the entire cluster. Failure to do so by the project proponent vitiates the Environmental Clearance.

2.3. Impact of Disaster Management Plan

2.3.1. The area chosen for mining is situated in the moderate hazard zone and the 2^nd respondent did not consider the hazard vulnerability maps and the provisions of the State Disaster Management Plan, 2016 while appraising the project of the 5^th respondent. 2.4. Siting Criteria

2.4.1. The Central Pollution Control Board guidelines of 200m from residences is not considered by the 2^nd respondent by pointing out the distance criteria for permitting stone quarrying as per the guidelines. So far as Kerala is concerned, when blast