Item No.14:-

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Wednesday, the 18^th day of December2024.

(Through Video Conference)

Original Application No.41 of 2017(SZ)&

I.A. Nos.83, 92, 131 of 2022(SZ) &

I.A. No.148 of 2024(SZ)

IN THE MATTER OF:

K. Maheswaran, S/o KunjuKrishnan, Residing at Sreeshylam, Mangalapuram, Thonnekkal P.O, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala – 695317.

…Applicant(s)

Versus

1) State of Kerala, Represented by its Secretary Department of Industries & Commerce, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram – 695001.

2) Kerala State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Represented by its Member Secretary, Pettah, Pallimukku, P.O, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 024.

3) The Director, Directorate of Environment & Climate Change, Pettah, Pallimukku, P.O, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 024.

4) The District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, Collectorate, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 024. 5) M/s. English Indian Clays Pvt. Ltd, Thonnakkal P.O, Thiruvananthapuram – 695317 Represented by its DGM mines, R. Chandrasekaran.

...Respondent(s)

For Applicant(s): Mr. Harish Vasudevan, Mr. Rajan Vishnuraj.

For Respondent(s): Mr. G. Vignesh represented Mr. E.K. Kumaresan for R1, R3 & R4.

Ms. Mokshavathy represented Mr. G. Prabhu for R2.

M/s. Rajnish Pathiyil &

S. Geetha for R5/I.A.

Mrs. V.K. Rema Smrithi for Kerala SPCB.

CORAM HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

1. The above Original Application has been filed by the applicant, seeking the following prayers:-

“A. Declare that the 5^th respondent is not entitled to obtain ex post facto environmental clearance for their mining project on the basis of Annexure A4 lease order, which involves violation of the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

B. Direct the 2^nd respondent to reject Annexure A1 application preferred by the 5^th respondent by delisting the same.

C. Direct the 4^th respondent to take steps to initiate cognizance against the 5^th respondent for violation of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

D. Direct the respondent No. 1, 3 & 4 to ensure that no mining activities is conducted by the 5^th respondent on the basis of Annexure A4 lease order in violation of the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006.

E. Direct the 3^rd respondent to constitute an expert committee to assess the quantum of environmental damage in terms of money caused by the 5^th respondent and recover the same from the 5^th respondent.”

2. The matter has been kept pending for the reason that the Office Memorandum dated 07.07.2021 and 28.01.2022 issued by the MoEF&CC, which enables the Project Proponent to obtain ex-post facto Environmental Clearance, was stayed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Vanashakti Vs. Union of India &Ors. [W.P. (C) No.1394 of 2023]

3. Regarding the Prayer „A‟, in view of the stay granted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case referred supra, the relief has become infructuous. Similarly, the Prayer „B‟ to reject the Annexure - A1 Application also has become infructuous.

4. The 5^th Respondent ceased to operate in the year

2015, by virtue of the orders passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeal No.1099 of 2010 and batch cases

5. Regarding the Prayer „D‟, the Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala has already passed an order in the Writ Appeal No.1099 of 2010 and batch cases dated 04.10.2018. Only regarding the environmental damages, the last prayer (Prayer „E‟) viz., to assess the quantum of environmental damage, a Joint Committee was constituted by this Tribunal and they have assessed the damages.

6. The 5^th Respondent has filed a writ petition as W.P.

(C) No.41621 of 2024 before the Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala, challenging the said Joint Committee report, which is still pending consideration.

7. In the previously mentioned Writ Appeal, the 5^th Respondent was penalized by the Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala and has already paid compensation for all the illegalities. So far as the environmental damages that need to be assessed, the SEIAA – Kerala is