Kerala High Court
K.T. Varghese vs The State Of Kerala on 9 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.33150 OF 2019(P)
PETITIONER/S:
1 K.T. VARGHESE,
AGED 79 YEARS,
S/O. K.V.THOMAN,
KAVALAKKATTU HOUSE,
MAMBRA,
KARUKUTTY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN-683 576.
2 M.O.PAUL,
AGED 59 YEARS,
S/O. M.P.OUSEPH,
MALIEKKAL HOUSE,
MAMBRA, KARUKUTTY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN-683 576.
3 THE PARISTHITHY SAMRAKSHANA JANAKEEYA SAMITHY
REPRESENTED BY ITS PATRON- P.P.PHILIP
REGISTRATION NO.ER 527/08,
KARUKUTTY P.O.,
MAMBRA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN-683 576.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ABDUL JAWAD K.
SMT.A.GRANCY JOSE
W.P.(C) No.33150 of 2019 2
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
(DISTRICT COLLECTOR),
DISTRICT COLLECTORATE,
IST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
DISTRICT COLLECTORATE,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM-682 030.
4 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST
OFFICE OF THE MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM-682 030.
5 THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AUTHORITY (SEIAA)
KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX,
4TH FLOOR, THAMPANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
6 THE PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT
REPRESETNED BY ITS SECRETARY,
KURUMASSERY P.O.,
MOOZHIKKULAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 579.
W.P.(C) No.33150 of 2019 3
7 MANJU JOEMON,
PARTNER, SAND ROCK ASSOCIATES,
VI/492-A, EDATHALA BUILDING,
NEELESWARAM P.O., KALADY,
ERNAKULAM-683 574.
R1-4 BY SMT.RENJITHA G., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY SRI.S.KANNAN, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R6 BY SRI.S.GOPINADHAN, STANDING COUNSEL
R6 BY ADV. SRI.MANU SRINATH
R7 BY SRI.BABU S. NAIR, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 09-04-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019
4
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------
Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2021
JUDGMENT
The grievance voiced by the petitioners in this writ
petition concerns the granite building stone quarry of the seventh
respondent located in the vicinity of their residences.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the writ petition
are the following: The husband of the seventh respondent obtained
a quarrying lease in respect of 3.0915 Hectares of land in
Parakkadavu Village on 14.10.2011 in terms of the Kerala Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. Ext.P5 is the indenture of lease
executed on 22.12.2011 in favour of the husband of the seventh
respondent. The husband of the seventh respondent died during
2018. Thereupon, the seventh respondent got the quarrying lease
in the name of her husband transferred to her name and also
secured other licences and permissions for conducting quarrying
operations in the land covered by Ext.P5 quarrying lease. The case
set out by the petitioners in the the writ petition is that the
Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019
husband of the seventh respondent has not extracted minerals on
the strength of Ext.P5 quarrying lease within two years from the
date of execution of the quarrying lease and as such, the said
quarrying lease had lapsed and the seventh respondent is therefore
not entitled to extract minerals on the strength of the same. It is
also the case of the petitioners that the seventh respondent, at any
rate, is not entitled to conduct quarrying operations without
obtaining environmental clearance in terms of the Environmental
Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. It is the further case of the
petitioners that permission of the competent authority under
Section 40 of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act,
2003 is required for conducting quarrying operations in that quarry
and the seventh respondent has not obtained the permission of the
competent authority under the said provision. The petitioners,
therefore, seek, among others, directions to the respondents to
interdict the quarrying operations of the seventh respondent in the
land covered by Ext.P5 quarrying lease.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the seventh
respondent in the writ petition on 15.12.2020 contending, among
others, that the quarrying lease obtained by her husband is valid
for a period of 12 years from 22.12.2011; that there is no need to
obtain environmental clearance for the purpose of undertaking
quarrying activity on the strength of the said quarrying lease since
Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019
the same is one issued prior to 18.05.2012; that her husband had
started a crusher unit also in the land covered by Ext.P5 quarrying
lease; that the quarry as also the crusher unit have become
operational during 2013 and that the quarrying lease has,
therefore, not lapsed.
4. The fourth respondent, the District Geologist has filed
a counter affidavit in the matter on 17.12.2020, stating, among
others, that movement permit has been issued to the husband of
the seventh respondent on 1.8.2013 for extracting minerals for the
period upto 30.09.2013; that the husband of the seventh
respondent has operated the quarry during the said period; that
the seventh respondent preferred an application on 12.11.2018 for
approval of the mining plan; that the mining plan submitted by the
seventh respondent has been approved on 6.3.2019 and that the
seventh respondent has also been issued movement permit on
9.9.2020 for extracting minerals for the period upto 31.03.2021. It
is also stated by the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit that
Ext.P5 quarrying lease being one executed in the year 2011, the
seventh respondent is not required to obtain environmental
clearance for extracting minerals on the strength of the said
quarrying lease.
5. After hearing the parties on either side, this court has
passed an interim order on 21.12.2020 restraining the seventh
Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019
respondent from conducting mining activity in the land covered by
Ext.P5 quarrying lease without environmental clearance. Though
the seventh respondent filed an application seeking review of the
said interim order, the same was disposed of by this court, holding
that the seventh respondent is free to move this Court for vacating
the interim order. Accordingly, the seventh respondent preferred
I.A.No.1 of 2021 seeking orders vacating the interim order dated
21.12.2020. When the said application came up for orders, it was
agreed to by the counsel for the parties that the writ petition itself
can be heard, and accordingly, the matter was heard for final
disposal of the writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the
stand of the petitioners in the writ petition that the husband of the
seventh respondent has not commenced quarrying operations
within two years from the date of execution of Ext.P5 quarrying
lease and as such, Ext.P5 quarrying lease had lapsed. The learned
counsel has also reiterated the stand of the petitioners that at any
rate, the seventh respondent is not entitled to operate the quarry
without obtaining environmental clearance. Placing reliance on the
findings rendered by the National Green Tribunal in Ext.P3 order
that there is a water tank at a distance of 184 meters from the
quarry, the learned counsel has also contended that the seventh
respondent is not entitled to operate the quarry without obtaining
Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019
permission of the competent authority under Section 40 of the
Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003.
7. The learned Government Pleader reiterated the stand
of the fourth respondent as disclosed in the counter affidavit filed
by the fourth respondent.
8. Placing reliance on the various documents produced
by the seventh respondent along with the counter affidavit filed in
the matter as also in the interlocutory application preferred by her
for vacating the interim order dated 21.12.2020, the learned
counsel for the seventh respondent submitted that the husband of
the seventh respondent was operating the quarry during 2013 and
the contention of the petitioners that the quarrying lease in favour
of the husband of the seventh respondent had lapsed, is
unsustainable. The learned counsel has also submitted that in the
light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in All
Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala, 2015(2)
KLT 78, in as much as the quarrying lease in favour of the husband
of the seventh respondent was one which was existing on
18.05.2012, the day with effect from which the requirement of
environmental clearance was made applicable for quarries in lands
measuring less than 5 hectares, the petitioners cannot be heard to
contend that the seventh respondent is required to obtain
environmental clearance for conducting quarrying operations on
Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019
the strength of Ext.P5 quarrying lease.
9. I have examined the contentions put forward by
the learned counsel for the parties on either side. Sub-section (4) of
Section 4A of the Kerala Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 provides that where the holder of a mining
lease fails to undertake mining operations for a period of 2 years
after the date of execution of the lease, or having commenced
mining operations, has discontinued the same for a period of two
years, the lease shall lapse on the expiry of the period of two years
from the date of execution of lease or as the case may be,
discontinuance of the mining operations. Rule 29(1)(g) of the Kerala
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 also provided that unless the
State Government or the competent authority for sufficient cause
permit or permits otherwise the lessee shall commence mining
operations within three months from the date of execution of the
lease. Explanation to clause (g) to Rule 29(1) clarified that for the
purpose of the said provision mining operations shall include the
erection of machinery, laying of a tramway or construction of a
road in connection with working of the mine. The said Explanation
reads thus:
"For the purpose of this clause mining operations shall include the
errection of machinery, laying of a tramway or construction of a
road in connection with the working of the mine;"
Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019
The petitioners have no case in the writ petition that the husband
of the seventh respondent having commenced mining operations
has discontinued the same for a period of two years. Their specific
case in the writ petition is that the husband of the seventh
respondent has not commenced the mining operations within two
years from the date of execution of the lease deed. The first and
foremost question to be examined therefore is as to whether the
husband of the seventh respondent has commenced quarrying
operations within two years from the date of Ext.P5 quarrying
lease, viz, 22.12.2011.
10. Ext.P4 proceedings of the Director of the Mining and
Geology would show that the husband of the seventh respondent
has applied for quarrying lease on 10.08.2011. Ext.R7(n) is the
building permit obtained by the husband of the seventh respondent
on 22.8.2011 for putting up buildings necessary for running the
crusher unit in the land covered by Ext.P5 quarrying lease.
Ext.R7(n) indicates that the same was issued pursuant to an
application preferred by the husband of the seventh respondent on
12.08.2011. Ext.R7(l) is the consent obtained by the husband of the
seventh respondent on 20.12.2012 from the Kerala State Pollution
Control Board to operate the crusher unit in the land covered by
Ext.P5 quarrying lease. Ext.R7(d) is the licence issued by the
Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019
Parakkadavu Grama Panchayat to the husband of the seventh
respondent on 27.3.2013 for running the quarry as also the crusher
unit for the period from 27.3.2013 to 31.3.2014. The numbers of
the building constructed in the land covered by Ext.P5 quarrying
lease pursuant to Ext.R7(n) building permit are disclosed in
Ext.R7(d) licence. The aforesaid documents would certainly show
that the husband of the seventh respondent has established a
metal crusher unit in the land covered Ext.P5 quarrying lease.
Ext.R7(k) is the representation preferred on behalf of the husband
of the seventh respondent on 5.4.2013 to the Circle Inspector of
Police, Angamaly for police aid for removing the obstruction
caused by one Philip and others to the movement of vehicles
carrying materials to and from the metal crusher unit run by him. In
the said representation, the particulars of four vehicles, the
movement of which has been obstructed, are also furnished.
Ext.R7(h) is the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C)
No.11274 of 2013 filed by the husband of the seventh respondent,
granting police protection to him for transportation of materials to
and from his metal crusher unit. The Circle Inspector of Police,
Angamaly and Philip referred to in R7(k) representation are the
respondents in the said case. Ext.R7(m) is the communication
issued by the Secretary of the Parakkadavu Panchayat to the
husband of the seventh respondent on 27.4.2013 restraining him
Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019
from operating the granite quarry. The petitioners have no case
that the husband of the seventh respondent was running the metal
crusher unit sourcing the raw materials from outside. In the
absence of such a case for the petitioners, the aforesaid documents
would establish that the husband of the seventh respondent has
made the quarry and crusher unit operational before 5.4.2013.
Further, Ext.R7(c) is a letter issued by the Director of Mining and
Geology on 9.7.2013 to the husband of the seventh respondent
informing him that his metal crusher unit has been registered for
changing over to the consolidated royalty scheme as provided for
under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. The said
letter would reveal that the husband of the seventh respondent has
exercised option in terms of Rule 45P of the Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 1967 during July, 2013 to pay consolidated
royalty for the mineral extracted from the quarry covered by Ext.P5
quarrying lease as provided for in Schedule IV to the Minor Mineral
Concession Rules, 1967, instead of paying royalty specified in
Schedule I to the said Rules. If the quarry run by the husband of
the seventh respondent in the land covered by Ext.P5 quarrying
lease was not operational, there is no reason why he should
exercise the option to pay the consolidated royalty in terms of Rule
45P of the said Rules. The fourth respondent, the Geologist has
stated in the counter affidavit filed by him in the matter that
Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019
movement permit has been issued to the husband of the seventh
respondent for removing 20,000 metric tonnes of granite building
stones on 1.8.2013 for the period upto 30.9.2013 and that the
husband of the seventh respondent has removed granite building
stones on the strength of the said movement permit. Ext.R4(a) is
the movement permit issued in this regard by the competent
authority under the Rules to the husband of the seventh
respondent. If the materials aforesaid are examined in the light of
the Explanation to clause (g) of Rule 29(1) of the Kerala Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, it cannot be said at all that the
petitioner has not commenced the mining operations in the land
covered by Ext.P5 quarrying lease within two years from the date
of its execution. Needless to say that the contention of the
petitioners that the quarrying lease obtained by the husband of
the seventh respondent had lapsed is only to be rejected and I do
so.
11. The next question is as to whether the seventh
respondent is required to obtain environmental clearance for the
purpose of operating the quarry referred to in the writ petition.
Admittedly, the seventh respondent is operating the quarry
referred to in the writ petition on the strength of Ext.P5 quarrying
lease obtained by her husband on 22.12.2011. There is no dispute
between the parties to the fact that the area of the land in respect
Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019
of which the said quarrying lease has been granted to the husband
of the seventh respondent is less than 5 hectares. There is also no
dispute to the fact that the requirement of environmental clearance
for quarries situated in lands measuring less than 5 hectares was
brought in by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and
Forests only with effect from 18.05.2012. In All Kerala River
Protection Council, this court has clarified that in cases where
quarrying lease was existing as on 18.5.2012, no environmental
clearance is required for extraction of minor minerals. In other
words, the contention of the petitioners that the seventh
respondent is required to obtain environmental clearance for
conducting the quarrying operation based on Ext.P5 quarrying
lease is liable to be rejected and I do so.
12. True, sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Kerala
Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 provides that no
person shall, without the written permission of the Irrigation Officer,
conduct mining or quarrying operation using explosives within a
radius of one kilometre of any bridge, dam, check dam or any other
work, structure or construction, owned, controlled or maintained by
the Government, a local authority or any other authority. The
contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners based
on the said statutory provision is also liable to be rejected as the
petitioners have no case in the writ petition that any bridge, dam,
Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019
check dam or any other work, structure or construction, owned,
controlled or maintained by the Government, a local authority or
any other authority exist within 1 kilometer of the land covered by
Ext.P5 quarrying lease. The only averment made by the petitioner
in the writ petition in this regard in ground (D) of the writ petition
reads thus:
"Moreover, Section 40 of the Kerala Irrigation and Water
Conservation Act, 2003 prohibits mining near water canal. The 7 th
respondent has not secured permission from the statutory body
under that Act for mining. So, mining becomes illegal for that
reason as well. The presence of huge water tank and other
structures including residential buildings makes the land unsuitable
for blasting and mining as found in Ext.P1 and P3. Thus, the land is
liable to be declared as absolutely unsuitable for mining."
The averments aforesaid, according to me, are vague and highly
insufficient to justify a consideration of the contention raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioners based on Section 40 of the
Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003.
The writ petition, in the circumstances, is without merits
and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE
tgs
Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE AIR
APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN APPEAL NO.8/13,
DATED 10.10.2013.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED
20.12.2012, GRANTED BY THE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.1.2019 IN
APPEAL NO.171/18 (EARLIER APPEAL
NO.18/14(SZ)).
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DATED
14.10.2011.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE DATED
22.12.2011, BETWEEN THE STATE GOVERNMENT
AND MR. JOEMON JOSEPH.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
30.3.2019, FILED BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR D & O
LICENSE FROM THE 6TH RESPONDENT THROUGH
THE 2ND RESPONDENT BOARD, SUBMITTED BY
THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE JOINT
INSPECTION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED FOR THE
GRANT OF D & O LICENSE BY THE PANCHAYAT,
DATED 21.6.2019.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 15.11.2019,
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT, OBTAINED UNDER
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF
REJECTION FURNISHED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
28.10.2019, SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD
PETITIONER BEFORE THE OFFICIAL
RESPONDENTS AS WELL AS OTHER STATUTORY
AUTHORITIES.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
23.11.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PCB DATED
31.5.2013
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT DATED 9.5.2013
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.6.2013
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 8633/2013
AND CONNECTED CASE.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R7(a): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WP(C)NO.11468/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
DATED, 03/04/2017.
EXHIBIT R7(b): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
25/10/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
WP(C)NO.25869/2019.
EXHIBIT R7(c): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DATED,
09/07/2013.
EXHIBIT R7(d): TRUE COPY OF THE D&O LICENCE ISSUED
TO THE FIRM DATED, 27.3.2013.
EXHIBIT R7(e): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE
PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST BY THE
DISTRICT GEOLOGIST DATED, 12.7.2013.
EXHIBIT R7(f): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE
PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST BY THE
GEOLOGIST DATED, 1.6.2013
EXHIBIT R7(g): TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. DATED, 6.4.2013
IN CRIME NO.858/2013 OF THE ANGAMALY
POLICE STATION.
EXHIBIT R7(h): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED, 23.4.2013
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)NO.
11274/2013.
Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019
EXHIBIT R7(i): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE
PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST DATED, 25.6.2014
BY THE SECRETARY, PARAKKADAVU GRAMA
PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT R7(j): TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF MACHINERIES
INSTALLED BY THE PREDECESSOR IN
INTEREST AND A LIST WHICH WAS PRODUCED
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
8.8.2011.
EXHIBIT R7(k): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE
MANAGER OF THE FIRM TO THE CIRCLE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANGAMALY DATED,
5.4.2013.
EXHIBIT R7(l): TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE
ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
TO THE PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST DATED,
20.12.2012.
EXHIBIT R7(m): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE
FIRM BY THE PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT
DATED, 27.4.2013.
EXHIBIT R7(n): TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED
TO THE OWNER OF THE LAND TO ERECT THE
BUILDING FOR THE CRUSHER UNIT DATED,
22.8.2011.
EXHIBIT R7(o): TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENCE
ISSUED TO THE PREDECESSOR IN
INTEREST OF THE FIRM DT, 25.10.2013.
EXHIBIT R4(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE MOVEMENT PERMIT
GRANTED ON 01.08.2013 TO THE CONCESSION
HOLDER.
EXHIBIT R4(b): A TRUE COPY OF THE MOVEMENT PERMIT
DATED 09.09.2020 ISSUED TO THE CONCESSION
HOLDER.
ANNEXURE- R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PCB DATED
31.05.2013.
ANNEXURE- R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT DATED 09.05.2013.
Writ Petition (C) No.33150 of 2019
ANNEXURE- R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
10.06.2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.P.(C)8633/13 AND CONNECTED CASE.
ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE D & O LICENCE ISSUED TO
THE REVIEW PETITIONER DATED, 27.3.2013.
ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE
REVIEW PETITIONER BY THE DISTRICT
GEOLOGIST DATED, 12.7.2013.
ANNEXURE C : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE
REVIEW PETITIONER BY THE GEOLOGIST
DATED, 1.6.2013.
ANNEXURE D : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY, PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT
DATED, 1.3.2013.
ANNEXURE E : TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.
858/2013 OF THE ANGAMALY POLICE STATION
DATED, 6.4.2013.
ANNEXURE F : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED, 23.4.2013
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.P.(C)NO.11274/2013.
ANNEXURE G : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE
REVIEW PETITIONER DATED, 25.6.2014 BY
THE SECRETARY, PARAKKADAVU GRAMA
PANCHAYAT.
ANNEXURE H : TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF MACHINERIES
INSTALLED BY THE PETITIONER AND A LIST
WHICH WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD, 8.8.2011.
ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE
ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
TO THE REVIEW PETITIONER DATED,
20.12.2012.
ANNEXURE J : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY THE PARAKKADAVU GRAMA
PANCHAYAT DATED, 27.4.2013.
ANNEXURE K : TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED
TO THE OWNER OF THE LAND TO ERECT THE
BUILDING FOR THE CRUSHER UNIT DATED,
22.8.2011.
