EC for blasting quarries quashed in abeyance for non-adherence to CPCB's 200m distance criterion from dwellings, mandating re-appraisal of hydrogeological, biodiversity risks despite fresh application post-prior rejection.

JUDGMENT

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

1. The appeal is challenging the Environmental Clearance dated 01.07.2023 granted to the 5^th Respondent for quarrying operations in Pulamanthole Village, Malappuram District, alleging procedural violations, environmental risks and impact on livelihoods due to the project.

2. The 5^th Respondent originally had submitted an application for Environmental Clearance before the District Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) - Malappuram for the granite building stone quarry project for an extent of 1.8227 Hectares at Sy. No. 85 (pt).

3. The appellant herein filed a Writ Petition No.41905 of 2017 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, in which, the Hon’ble High Court vide its Judgement dated 11.04.2018 directed the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) - Kerala to consider the application and pass orders, therein, and to submit a copy before the Hon’ble High Court within 03 months from the date of receipt of files from the DEIAA. Accordingly, after the papers were forwarded from the DEIAA, the SEIAA – Kerala had considered the proposal and passed the impugned order.

4. According to the appellant, the application for Environmental Clearance applied by the 5^th Respondent was beyond the time stipulated in S.O. 804 (E) dated 14.03.2017 and O.M. dated 30.05.2018. It is stated that pursuant to the interim order of the Hon’ble High Court on 11.04.2018, the Environmental Clearance was granted on 03.11.2021. The SEIAA – Kerala was aware of the complaints raised by the appellant against the project. However, the issues raised even in the Writ Petition were not considered by the SEIAA – Kerala before issuing Environmental Clearance. The SEIAA - Kerala has not considered the fact that no District Survey Report (DSR) was approved or prepared by the 2^nd Respondent for the Malappuram District. There is no separate DSR for granite/building stone made or considered by the SEIAA – Kerala before granting Environmental Clearance. The impugned Environmental Clearance is in violation of EIA Notification, 2006 and its amendments.

5. It is alleged further that in the absence of the hydrogeological study and appraisal of the same by the SEAC – Kerala, the proposed project would affect water table in the appellant area once the mining operation commenced. Without the hydrogeological study being conducted, the Environmental Clearance ought not to have been issued. Thus, the appellant has alleged that SEAC – Kerala and SEIAA – Kerala failed to conduct a meaningful appraisal of the project. It is ascertained by the appellant that the authorities acted mechanically relying solely on the documents submitted by the Project Proponent without individual application of mind regarding the validity or comprehensiveness of the same.

6. It is also alleged that there was no public hearing thus depriving the stakeholders of the opportunity to voice their concerns. Specific concerns like ground water depletion, structural damage to nearby residences due to blasting and the likelihood of landslides owi