Kerala High Court
K.A. Anil Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 15 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.5153 OF 2017(S)
PETITIONER:
K.A. ANIL KUMAR, PRESIDENT, KADUMKRISHI KARSHAKA SAMITHI,
CHERUVAL, PAZHAI.P.O, PUTHUKADU, THRISSUR-680 301.
BY ADV. SMT.G.RANJITA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
THRISSUR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 301.
3 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 508.
4 THE NENMANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE
SECRETARY, PALAKKARA, CHITTISSERY.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 301.
5 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, NENMANIKKARA,
CHITTISSERY.P.O, THRISSUR-680 301.
6 C.N.DILKUMAR, MANAGING PARTNER,
ASHIRVAD CONCRETE PRODUCTS, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, P.O.PAZHAYI,
THRISSUR-680 301.
7 C.N.ANIL KUMAR, MANAGING PARTNER, CHITHRA CERAMICS, PAZHAI,
PUTHUKADU, THRISSUR-680 310.
R1-3, R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.TEKCHAND
R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR
R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SIDHARTHAN
R4 BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN
R7 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.01.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.5153 OF 2017(S)
:: 2 ::
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of January 2021
S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.
Petitioner in this public interest litigation is stated to be the President of
the Kadumkrishi Karshaka Samithi in the Nenmanikkara Grama Panchayat.
Petitioner has challenged Exts.P4, P5 and P6 orders passed by the third
respondent. Prayers sought for in this writ petition are as follows:
"i) issue a writ or order, direction to the 2 nd and 3rd respondents
not to issue permit to the 6th respondent without complying the
norms and rules. And to declare that the petitioner's right to
protect the agricultural land. Rejuvenate environmental frame
work in the present scenario by the first respondent accepting the
responsibility.
ii) issue a writ or direction to the respondents 2 nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th to
consider the ecological fact when a permit is issued.
iii) issue a direction to the 3 rd respondent not to issue/renew the
permits without the Environmental Clearance Certificate."
2. According to the petitioner, illegal mining of clay has been going on
for the past few years in the Nenmanikkara Grama Panchayth. Petitioner's
samithi protested many times against the action of removal of clay. Petitioner
has contended that the ecological imbalance is evident due to the widespread
clay excavation from the 4th respondent panchayat. He has further averred
WP(C).No.5153 OF 2017(S)
:: 3 ::
that clay is unearthed in huge amount which may leads to drastic ecological
imbalance resulting in shortage of water in the whole panchayat.
3. Respondent No.6/C.N.Dilkumar, Managing Partner Ashirvad Concrete
Products, on earlier occasions, had approached this Honourable court for
permission to unearth the clay in the agricultural land. W.P.(C)No.9049 of 2011
was filed on account of non consideration of his application to excavate earth
for constructing two concrete tanks required for curing concrete blocks
manufactured in his unit. Subsequent to that W.P.(C)No.31183 of 2014 was also
filed for the same reason. The writ court disposed of W.P.(C)No.31183 of 2014
by judgment dated 22.11.2014, relevant portion of the same reads as under:
"2. The construction in the matter is two tanks for a
manufacturing unit. The environmental clearance is required
when there is an environmental imbalance on account of
excavation and removal of ordinary earth. Considering the
fact that only two tanks are being constructed by the
petitioner, ensuring that it is only for the purpose of
construction of two tanks, necessary permission shall be
granted to the petitioner for removing ordinary earth as well
as the clay. Needful shall be done within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Writ
petition is disposed of as above."
WP(C).No.5153 OF 2017(S)
:: 4 ::
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the purpose of
constructing the tank or pond by the 6 th respondent was only to excavate the
clay for commercial basis. He also contended that the sixth respondent in
2016 obtained permission from the third respondent/the District Geologist on
the basis of Exhibits P1 and P3 judgments for excavation of same tanks but he
had started excavation from the year 2011 onwards. When there was stay from
second respondent/the District Collector, Thrissur for submission of the
environmental clearance certificate and that the same was lifted vide W.P.
(C)No.11806/2015 dated 10.4.2015, yet another order was passed by the third
respondent, on that basis. For the construction of tanks with the same survey
number every year, the sixth respondent had approached this court for
permission of excavaction. The apprehension of the writ petitioner is that if
the 6th and 7th respondents, are again given permits, without taking an
environmental clearance certificate from the District Collector, Thrissur (2 nd
respondent), the same would eventually result in ecological imbalance.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials
available on record.
6. On 28th February 2017 in W.P.(C)No.5153 of 2017, a Honourable
Division Bench of this Court had passed an order, which reads as under:
"Respondents 1 to 5 will ensure that no application for
WP(C).No.5153 OF 2017(S)
:: 5 ::
permission or renewal of permit is granted to the respondents 6
and 7 or any other person in relation to the area in question,
without the requisite clearance from the statutory authorities in
accordance with law, including in obedience to the judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, which govern the
field."
7. It is evident from records that whatever be the main reliefs sought for
in the writ petition, the same has been granted by way of an interim order
dated 28th February 2017. Therefore, interim order dated 28 th February 2017 is
made absolute.
8. Instant writ petition is filed as a public interest litigation. Therefore,
the prayers sought for in this writ petition to declare the petitioner's right to
protect the agricultural land cannot be granted, which is personal.
Recording the above, writ petition is disposed of.
sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR
CHIEF JUSTICE
sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY
JUDGE
jes
WP(C).No.5153 OF 2017(S)
:: 1 ::
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE W.P(C)NO.31184/2014 DATED
22.11.2014
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE W.P(C)1806/2015 DATED 10.4.2015
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF W.P(C)13260/2016 DATED 5.4.2016
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER.333/16-17/2266/C2/TDO/16 DATED 28.10.2016
ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER.NO.401/16-17/469/BC/C2/TDO/14 DATED
2/12/2016 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.505/16-17/C2/TDO/14 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
DATED 6.01.2017 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
EXHIBIT P7(A,B, TRUE COPY OF THE THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ARE
PRODUCED
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.11.2016 ALONG WITH
ENGLISH TRANSLATION
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11/1/2017 ALONG WITH
ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
// TRUE COPY //
P.S. TO JUDGE
