Law Updates Made Simple.

Kerala High Court Rules SCNBWL Clearance Not Mandatory for Quarries Outside Draft ESZ Limits

KOCHI: In a significant ruling with wide-ranging implications for the mining industry in Kerala, the High Court has declared that quarrying operations located outside the Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ) as defined in draft notifications do not require clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL).

Justice C. Jayachandran, in a common judgment disposing of a batch of 21 writ petitions, held that the specific ESZ boundaries in a draft notification supersede the general condition imposed by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), which mandated wildlife clearance for projects within 10 kilometers of a wildlife sanctuary based on a Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated May 17, 2022.

Case Background

The petitioners, all quarry operators, challenged a specific condition in their Environmental Clearances (EC) issued by the SEIAA. This condition required them to obtain a "Wild Life Clearance from the SCNBWL" before commencing mining, as their projects were located within 10 km of wildlife sanctuaries like Peechi Vazhani and Chimmony. They argued that their operations fell outside the ESZ boundaries proposed in the draft notifications for these sanctuaries and sought relief based on a recent Supreme Court order.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners' Stance: The quarry operators contended that their situation was identical to a case recently decided by the Supreme Court on May 29, 2025 (referred to as GV-III). In that order, the Apex Court permitted a quarry to operate 7.5 km from the Peechi-Vazhani Wildlife Sanctuary, despite a similar condition, because it was outside the draft ESZ's maximum proposed distance of 6.2 km. The petitioners argued they were entitled to the same treatment.

Respondents' Counter: The SEIAA, supported by the Central Government and the State Forest Department, argued that the Supreme Court's latest order did not nullify the binding nature of the MoEF & CC's O.M. dated May 17, 2022. They pointed to an earlier Supreme Court order from April 26, 2023 (GV-II), which explicitly directed strict adherence to this O.M. when granting environmental clearances. They maintained that since the O.M. was not stayed, the 10 km rule for SCNBWL clearance remained in full force.

Court's Analysis and Precedent

The High Court meticulously analyzed the trilogy of Supreme Court orders in the landmark T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad case. Justice Jayachandran found the respondents' arguments to be misplaced.

The Court noted that the Supreme Court's most recent order (GV-III) had specifically dealt with and rejected the same objections raised by the MoEF & CC. The High Court observed:

"The Supreme Court took stock of the fact that the distance of 10 km as a prohibition for mining activities has been reduced to 1 km, as per G.V-II and accordingly... the Interlocutory Applications were allowed... permitting the applicant to continue his operations in the quarry, which is located 7.5 km away from the Peechi-Vazhani Wildlife Sanctuary."

The judgment clarified that the directive in the GV-II order to follow the 2022 O.M. was a replacement for a previous, unworkable direction. Crucially, the Court determined that this directive could not be extended beyond its original context. For Kerala, where draft ESZ notifications have been issued, the boundaries specified in those drafts are the governing factor.

The Court stated:

"Insofar as Kerala is concerned, we are governed by the directions in paragraph no.44(b) [of the GV-I order], inasmuch as draft notification has already been issued stipulating the ESZ... Admittedly, the project activities of all the project proponents in the subject Writ Petitions are located outside the respective maxima of the ESZ. If that be so, a consideration by the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL) in terms of the O.M. dated 17.05.2022 cannot be insisted upon."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court allowed all the writ petitions, delivering a decisive verdict:

Declaration: The petitioners are not required to obtain clearance from the SCNBWL.

Quashing: The specific condition in their Environmental Clearances mandating SCNBWL clearance was quashed.

Direction: The Director of Mining and Geology was instructed to process the petitioners' applications for quarrying leases without insisting on the now-quashed condition.

The Court added a caveat that this judgment would be subject to any future clarifications or orders from the Supreme Court on the same issue. This ruling provides significant clarity and relief to quarry operators in Kerala, reinforcing the primacy of area-specific draft ESZ notifications over generalized distance-based rules from office memorandums.