Kerala High Court
Sachu Rajan Eapen vs State Of Kerala on 28 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942
RP.No.1 OF 2021 IN WP(C)NO.17391/2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2020 IN
WP(C)NO.17391/2020(Y) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
SACHU RAJAN EAPEN,
KALLUVILA ESTATE, MURINJAKAL P.O.,
KOODAL, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 693.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
SRI.ARUN THOMAS
SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN
SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL
SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA
SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
SMT.DIVYA SARA GEORGE
SMT.JAISY ELZA JOE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTAM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
3 CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PARIVESH BHAWAN, EAST ARJUN NAGAR,
DELHI-110032, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER
SECRETARY.
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
2
4 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PLAMOODU JUNCTION, PATTAM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MEMBER SECRETARY.
5 SRI.M.HARIDASAN,
S/O.MUTHAN, KONNAKKALKADAVU HOUSE,
KORENCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD-678684.
6 STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY
(SEIAA), 4TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL
BUILDING, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
7 THE GEOLOGIST,
DISTRICT OFFICE, MINING AND GEOLOGY
DEPARTMENT, MINI CIVIL STATION, ARANMULA
P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689533.
SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, STATE POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
SRI.M.AJAY SC, CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
ADV.SRI.V.HARISH
SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SC
SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN ADDL AG
SRI.S.KANNAN SPL.GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.01.2021, ALONG WITH RP.17/2021, RP.22/2021,
RP.37/2021, RP.39/2021, RP.40/2021, RP.52/2021,
RP.53/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942
RP.No.17 OF 2021 IN WP(C)NO.21566/2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2020 IN
WP(C)NO.21566/2020(U) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
1 L.SAIJU,
AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.K.LEKSHMANAN,
MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. K.LEKSHMANAN COMPANY
INFRASTRUCTURES AND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,
(KLC AND IPL), AKKAVILA, KOLLAM-690 011.
2 SAJIL SATHEEK,
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.L.SATHEEK, RESIDING AT
AKKAVILA HOUSE, NO.200, SREE SARAVANA NAGAR,
ERAVIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM, KERALA-691 011.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE
INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
4
PATTAM PALACE P.O., KESAVADASAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
3 THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PARIVESH BHAWAN, MAHARISHI VALKMIKI MARG,
EAST ARJUN NAGAR, VISHWAS NAGAR EXTENSION,
VISWAS NAGAR, SHAHDRA, DELHI-110 032,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
4 THE STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
FLAT NO.H/6TH FLOOR, KESHAVADASAPURAM,
M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
5 HARIDAS.M.,
S/O.MUTHAN, KONNAKKALKADAVU HOUSE,
KORANCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD-678 684.
SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, STATE POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
SRI.M.AJAY SC, CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
ADV.SRI.V.HARISH
SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SC
SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN ADDL AG
SRI.S.KANNAN SPL.GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.01.2021, ALONG WITH RP.1/2021, RP.22/2021, RP.37/2021,
RP.39/2021, RP.40/2021, RP.52/2021, RP.53/2021, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942
RP.No.22 OF 2021 IN WP(C)NO.16864/2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2020 IN WP(C)NO.
16864/2020(G) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
MRS.BETTY BIJU,
AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. LATE BIJU AUGUSTINE,
PULIYANANICKAL HOUSE, ARAKULAM(PO),
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 591
BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, PARIVESH
BHAVAN, MAHARSHI VALMIKI BHAVAN, VALMIKI
MARG, EAST ARJUN NAGAR, VISWAS NAGAR
EXTENSION, SHARADA, NEW-DELHI-110 032.
3 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,
PATTOM PALACE P.O., KESAVADASAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
6
4 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
PATTOM PALACE (PO), KESAVADASAPURAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
5 THE GEOLOGIST,
MINING AND GEOLOGY IDUKKI DISTRICT OFFICE,
MINI CIVIL STATION, THODUPUZHA(PO),
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 584.
SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, STATE POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
SRI.M.AJAY SC, CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SC
SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN ADDL AG
SRI.S.KANNAN SPL.GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.01.2021, ALONG WITH RP.1/2021, RP.17/2021, RP.37/2021,
RP.39/2021, RP.40/2021, RP.52/2021, RP.53/2021, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942
RP.No.37 OF 2021 IN WP(C)NO.22019/2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2020 IN WP(C)NO.
22019/2020(B) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
BINU CHERIAN,
THAKKIRICKAL HOUSE, CHELAD P.O.,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM
BY ADVS.
SHRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PARIVESH BHAVAN, EAST ARJUN NAGAR,
DELHI-110 032, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER
SECRETARY.
2 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PLAMOODU JUNCTION, PATTAM PALACE P.O.,
TRIVANDRUM-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER
SECRETARY.
3 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
MALAPPURAM, MINI CIVIL STATION,
MANJERI, MALAPPURAM-676 121.
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
8
4 THE DIRECTOR,
MINING AND GEOLOGY DIRECTORATE,
KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 004.
5 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM-695 001.
6 MINISTRY OF MINES,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAVAN,
DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
7 INDIAN BUREAU OF MINES,
MINISTRY OF MINES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
2ND FLOOR, INDIRA BHAVAN, CIVIL LINES,
NAGPUR, PIN-440 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MEMBER SECRETARY.
8 M.HARIDASAN,
KONNAKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O.,
KIZHAKKECHERRY, PALAKKAD, KERALA-678 684.
SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, STATE POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
SRI.M.AJAY SC, CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
ADV.SRI.V.HARISH
SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG
SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SC
SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN ADDL AG
SRI.S.KANNAN SPL.GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.01.2021, ALONG WITH RP.1/2021, RP.17/2021, RP.22/2021,
RP.39/2021, RP.40/2021, RP.52/2021, RP.53/2021, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942
RP.No.39 OF 2021 IN WP(C)NO.16474/2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2020 IN
WP(C)NO.16474/2020(H) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
M/S.PEE GEE AGGREGATES PVT.LTD,
11/165, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP, AGED 37 YEARS,
THEKKA NEDUMPLACKAL,MALLAPPALLY WEST.P.O,
PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.HARIDAS
SRI.BIJU HARIHARAN
SRI.RENJI GEORGE CHERIAN
SRI.P.C.SHIJIN
SRI.RISHIKESH HARIDAS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT
AUTHORITY(SEIAA, KERALA), REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, 4TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL
COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
10
3 CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARIVESH
BHAVAN, EAST ARUJUN NAGAR, DELHI-110032.
4 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY MEMBER SECRETARY,
PLAMOODU JUNCTION, PATTOM PALACE.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.
5 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PATHANAMTHITTA,PIN-689645.
6 DISTRICT GEOLOGIST PATHANAMTHITTA,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
PATHANAMTHITTA,PIN-689645.
7 SECRETARY,
KOTTANGAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KOTTANGAL,PIN-686547.
8 SRI.M.HARIDASAN,
S/O.MUTHAN, KONNAKKAL KADAVU HOUSE,
KORANCHIRA.P.O, PALAKKAD,PIN-678684.
SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, STATE POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
SRI.M.AJAY SC, CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
ADV.SRI.V.HARISH
SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SC
SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN ADDL AG
SRI.S.KANNAN SPL.GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.01.2021, ALONG WITH RP.1/2021, RP.17/2021, RP.22/2021,
RP.37/2021, RP.40/2021, RP.52/2021, RP.53/2021, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942
RP.No.40 OF 2021 IN WP(C)NO.16953/2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2020 IN WP(C)NO.
16953/2020(T) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
R. MURALEEDHARAN,
AGED 53 YEARS, KEERTHI BHAVAN,
KADAKKODE P.O, KOLLAM - 691505.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
SRI.S.SREEDEV
SRI.RONY JOSE
SHRI.CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, PATTOM
PALACE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004.
3 CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PARIVESH BHAVAN, EAST ARJUN NAGAR,
DELHI -110032.
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
12
4 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PLAMOODU JUNCTION, PATTAM PALACE P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004, REPRESENTED BY
ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
5 THE GEOLOGIST,
OFFICE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT
OFFICE, ASRAMOM, KOLLAM - 691002.
SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, STATE POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
SRI.M.AJAY SC, CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
SRI.SUJIN
SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SC
SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN ADDL AG
SRI.S.KANNAN SPL.GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.01.2021, ALONG WITH RP.1/2021, RP.17/2021, RP.22/2021,
RP.37/2021, RP.39/2021, RP.52/2021, RP.53/2021, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942
RP.No.52 OF 2021 IN WP(C)NO.16762/2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2020 IN WP(C)
16762/2020(U) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
PALAKKAL GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,
R.S.NO 172, MYSORE PATTA, THOTTUMUKKAM P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 639,
REPRESENTED BY IT MANAGING DIRECTOR
P.M.ABOOBAKER.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.S.K.SAJU
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (INDUSTRIES
DEPARTMENT), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE AND MINING AND
GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
TRIVANDRUM-695 004.
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
14
3 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PLAMOOD JUNCTION, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
TRIVANDRUM-695 004.
4 CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PARIVESH BHAVAN, EAST ARJUN NAGAR,
DELHI-110 032.
5 M. HARIDASAN,
S/O MUTHAN, KONNAKKALKADAVU HOUSE,
KORENCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD-678 684.
6 R.P. SREENIVASAN,
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O LATE SUBRAHMANIAM,
'SREETHILAKAM', OTTAPPALAM, THOTTAKKARA P.O.,
PIN-679 102.
SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, STATE POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
SRI.M.AJAY SC, CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
ADV.SRI.V.HARISH
ADV.SRI.REJI GEORGE
SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN ADDL AG
SRI.S.KANNAN SPL.GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.01.2021, ALONG WITH RP.1/2021, RP.17/2021, RP.22/2021,
RP.37/2021, RP.39/2021, RP.40/2021, RP.53/2021, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942
RP.No.53 OF 2021 IN WP(C)NO.15962/2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2020 IN
WP(C)NO.15962/2020(U) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
M/S.V.K.ROCKS PVT. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MANJU JYOTHISH, AGED 32, VELLILAZHAKAM HOUSE,
MYLODE P.O., PIN-691 506.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
SRI.R.GITHESH
SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (INDUSTRIES
DEPARTMENT), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE AND MINING AND
GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
TRIVANDRUM-695 004.
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
16
3 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PLAMOOD JUNCTION, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
TRIVANDRUM-695 004.
4 CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PARIVESH BHAVAN, EAST ARJUN NAGAR,
DELHI-110 032.
5 M.HARIDASAN,
S/O MUTHAN, KONNAKKALKADAVU HOUSE,
KORENCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD-678 684.
SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, STATE POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
SRI.M.AJAY SC, CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
ADV.SRI.V.HARISH
SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN ADDL AG
SRI.S.KANNAN SPL.GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.01.2021, ALONG WITH RP.1/2021, RP.17/2021, RP.22/2021,
RP.37/2021, RP.39/2021, RP.40/2021, RP.52/2021, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
17
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
R.P. No.1 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.17391 of 2020
R.P. No.17 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.21566 of 2020
R.P. No.22 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.16864 of 2020
R.P. No.37 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.22019 of 2020
R.P. No.39 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.16474 of 2020
R.P. No.40 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.16953 of 2020
R.P. No.52 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.16762 of 2020
R.P. No.53 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.15962 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2021
ORDER
This batch of petitions are instituted seeking review of
the common judgment in W.P.(C) Nos.15962, 16474, 16762, 16864,
16953, 17391, 21566 and 22019 of 2020. The review petitioners
are the petitioners in the above writ petitions.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the review
petitioners as also the learned Standing Counsel for the State
Pollution Control Board (the SPCB).
3. The above writ petitions were disposed of along
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
with a batch of other writ petitions involving questions identical and
similar to the questions raised in the writ petitions, as per the
common judgment dated 21.12.2020, treating W.P.(C) No.16367 of
2020 filed by the State as the lead matter. The parties and Exhibits
are, therefore, referred to in this order also, as done in the common
judgment, as they appear in W.P.(C) No.16367 of 2020.
4. On 13.02.2019, respondents 3 to 115 preferred
Ext.P6 representation to the Prime Minister of India with a copy to
the Chairperson of the National Green Tribunal (the NGT)
complaining inter alia about the permissions and licences granted
for conducting stone quarrying at a place called Konnakkalkadavu
in Palakkad District in the State, mainly on the ground that the
proposed stone quarrying would affect the flora and fauna in the
area adversely. The copy of Ext.P6 representation received by the
Chairperson of the NGT has been treated by the Principal Bench of
the NGT as an application, and Ext.P7 order was passed on the
same directing the SPCB and the District Magistrate, Palakkad to
look into the matter and take appropriate action and furnish an
action taken report in the matter within two months. Pursuant to
Ext.P7 order, the SPCB has submitted a report before the NGT on
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
10.07.2019 stating, among others, that environmental clearance
has already been granted for the quarry referred to in the
representation and since the quarry is located beyond 50 meters
from the residential houses and public roads, there is no
impediment in operating the quarry. After considering the said
report, the NGT passed Ext.P8 order holding that stone quarries
would cause air and noise pollution even beyond 50 meters, and
consequently directed the SPCB to revisit the existing criteria based
on an appropriate study. Pursuant to Ext.P8 order, Ext.P9 report has
been filed by the SPCB stating that the existing distance criterion
can be maintained, provided the quarry operators comply with the
additional conditions referred to therein.
5. After considering Ext.P9 report, the NGT Passed
Ext.P10 order reiterating its earlier stand that the distance of 50
meters from human inhabited sites for permitting stone quarrying,
particularly when blasting is involved in the activity, is grossly
inadequate and will have deleterious effect on environment and
public health, and directing the Central Pollution Control Board
(CPCB) to examine and lay down appropriate stringent distance
restrictions for stone quarrying from human inhabited sites within a
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
month and convey the same to the SPCBs in the country. It was also
directed by the NGT in Ext.P10 order that the SPCBs will have to
take further action accordingly. Pursuant to Ext.P10 order, the CPCB
submitted Ext.P11 report before the NGT, fixing a distance criteria
of 100 meters when blasting is not involved, and 200 meters when
blasting is involved, from residential buildings and other human
inhabited sites, for stone quarrying. Ext.P11 report has been
accepted by the NGT and Ext.P12 order was passed directing that
the said distance criteria shall be implemented in the country. The
writ petitions were instituted challenging Ext.P12 order.
6. On 06.08.2020, this court passed an interim order
in W.P.(C) Nos.15305, 15309, 15435, 15858 and 15962 of 2020
permitting the existing quarry operators to continue their activities
notwithstanding the order of the NGT which is impugned in the writ
petitions, and directing that fresh licences and permissions shall not
be granted for conducting quarrying operations otherwise than in
accordance with the said order.
7. The contentions of the petitioners in the writ
petitions, in essence, were the following:
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
(i) The NGT being a creature of the National Green
Tribunal Act, 2010 (the NGT Act), it can exercise only
the powers conferred on it under the said statute;
that in terms of the said statute, the NGT can exercise
power only in respect of a dispute falling within the
scope of Section 14 of the NGT Act and grant only the
relief provided for in Section 15 of the NGT Act; that
the grievance/dispute raised by respondents 3 to 115
is not a dispute that falls within the scope of Section
14 of the NGT Act.
(ii) Even if it is accepted that the grievance/dispute
voiced by respondents 3 to 115 is one that falls within
the scope of Section 14 of the NGT Act, the NGT is
empowered to deal with the same only if an
application is filed for the same in terms of the
National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedures)
Rules, 2011 (NGT Rules); that the NGT Act and the
NGT Rules do not confer authority on the NGT to treat
a representation as an application, and the impugned
order being one passed on a representation, the
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
same is without jurisdiction.
(iii) Even if it is accepted that the grievance/dispute
voiced by respondents 3 to 115 is one that falls within
the scope of Section 14 of the NGT Act and that the
NGT is justified in treating the representation as an
application, the alleged cause of action for invoking
the jurisdiction of the NGT on the application as
disclosed in the representation being one arose in the
State of Kerala, the Principal Bench of the NGT which
does not have territorial jurisdiction over the State of
Kerala, has acted without jurisdiction in passing the
impugned order.
(iv) Even if it is accepted that the grievance/dispute
voiced by respondents 3 to 115 is one that falls within
the scope of Section 14 of the NGT Act, and the
Principal Bench of the NGT was justified in treating
the representation preferred by respondents 3 to 115
as an application, the impugned order is vitiated by
procedural irregularities in as much as the same was
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
passed without hearing all the affected parties.
(v) The impugned order, at any rate, is unjustified in
so far as respondents 3 to 115 have not voiced any
grievance in their representation concerning the
minimum distance to be maintained for permitting
stone quarrying from human inhabited sites.
(vi) A distance requirement of 50 meters from human
inhabited sites for permitting stone quarrying has
already been prescribed by the State Government in
the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (the
KMMC Rules), framed in exercise of the powers under
the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 (the MMDR Act), and the
impugned order modifying the aforesaid statutory
prescription is one issued without jurisdiction, for
such orders could be issued only by constitutional
courts having powers of judicial review.
(vii) The provisions of the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 do not confer any
authority on the CPCB to lay down any standards for
the suitability of any premises or location for carrying
on any industry, and that such prescriptions for the
purpose of protecting and improving the quality of
the environment and preventing, controlling and
abating environmental pollution, could be made only
by the Central Government under Section 3(2)(v) of
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The
impugned order of the NGT directing implementation
of the prescriptions made by CPCB in usurpation of
the power of the Central Government is illegal.
(viii) The impugned order is unjustified since Ext.P11
report of the CPCB, on the basis of which the said
order was passed is not one made based on any
study or scientific data."
8. This court found that the impugned order of the
NGT is vitiated for non compliance of the principles of natural
justice in as much as the same was rendered without affording an
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. This court also found,
having regard to the provisions of the NGT Act and the NGT Rules,
that the grievance / dispute raised by respondents 3 to 115 in the
application is one that falls within the scope of Section 14 of the
NGT Act; that the NGT has epistolary jurisdiction as also jurisdiction
to initiate proceedings suo motu for taking preventive and
restorative measures in the interest of the environment and that
the Principal Bench of the NGT has jurisdiction to entertain the
application of respondents 3 to 115. After having rendered the
findings aforesaid, this court remitted the application of
respondents 3 to 115 to the NGT for fresh consideration, in terms of
the judgment sought to be reviewed. Having decided to remit the
matter to the NGT for fresh consideration of the application, this
court also considered the question as to whether the status quo
prevailing as on the date of the impugned order as regards the
distance criteria to be maintained for permitting stone quarrying
from residential buildings and other human inhabited sites should
be restored pending disposal of the matter by the NGT, and found
in the peculiar facts of the case that it is only appropriate to order
that the interim order passed by this court on 06.08.2020 shall
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
continue. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed in part, the
impugned order of the NGT was set aside and the NGT was directed
to dispose of the application of respondents 3 to 115 afresh after
notice by way of publication to all those who are affected by the
prescription of the stringent distance criteria from residential
buildings and other human inhabited sites other than what is
prevailing in the State for permitting stone quarrying. As indicated,
it was also ordered that the interim order passed by this court on
06.08.2020 will continue till the disposal of the said application by
the NGT. It was however made clear that the NGT would be free to
modify the said interim order pending disposal of the application, if
situation warrants. As noted, the petitioners seek review of the said
judgment.
9. Before delving deep into the contentions raised by
the petitioners in the review petitions, it is necessary to mention
that in the light of the provisions under Order 47 Rule (1) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, the said power can be exercised only on
discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the
person seeking review or could not be produced by him at the time
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
when the order was made, or when the order is vitiated by errors
apparent on the face of the record. It is trite that an error apparent
on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction
must be an error which may strike one on a mere looking at the
record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning.
The Apex court explained the expression "error apparent on the
face of the record" in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v.
Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137, in the
following words:
"An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process
of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two
opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face
of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident
and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy
and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by
a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers
of the superior court to issue such a writ."
In the light of the aforesaid principles, an error which is not self-
evident and one could be discovered only by a process of
reasoning, can hardly be an error apparent on the face of the record
justifying the exercise of the review jurisdiction [See Parsion Devi
v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715]. To put it differently, the
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
power of review cannot be exercised on the ground that the
decision was erroneous on merits. The courts have, therefore, to
ensure that the review petition is not an appeal in disguise and if it
is found that the review petition is an appeal in disguise, the same
is liable to be rejected at the threshold, for otherwise, there would
be no end to the litigation at all. The contentions raised by the
petitioners in this review petitions are to be considered in the light
of the said principles.
10. I shall now refer to the contentions in the review
petitions case-wise.
R.P. No.1 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.17391 of 2020
11. The first ground urged by the petitioner for
seeking review of the judgment is that the statement of the learned
counsel for the SPCB recorded in the judgment that the additional
conditions referred to by the SPCB in Ext.P9 report are not insisted
at present is factually incorrect. It is stated that the said additional
conditions are insisted while granting approval of the mining plan of
the quarry operators and while granting them environmental
clearance. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that since this court ordered the interim order dated 06.08.2020 to
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
continue till the disposal of the application by the NGT on the basis
of the said incorrect statement of the counsel for the SPCB, the said
part of the judgment at least is liable to be reviewed. The
statement of the learned counsel for the SPCB recorded in the
judgment is only that the SPCB is not insisting compliance of the
conditions mentioned in Ext.P9 report at present. The petitioner has
no case that the SPCB is insisting compliance of those conditions at
present. The case of the petitioner, on the other hand, is only that
other statutory authorities are insisting compliance of most of the
said conditions. In other words, even the petitioner has no case that
the said statement is incorrect. When the statement recorded in the
judgement and relied on by the Court is correct, the contention
raised by the petitioner is irrelevant, especially in the context of a
petition seeking review of the judgement. The ground aforesaid is,
therefore, unsustainable.
12. The next ground is that the decision of the Apex
Court in Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari, (2018) 11
SCC 734 relied on by the petitioner in support of his contention that
the grievance/dispute raised by respondents 3 to 115 would not fall
within the scope of Section 14 of the NGT Act has not been
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
considered by the Court. The petitioner, howeve,r concedes that
the said contention has been taken note of by the Court in the
judgement. In Techi Tagi Tara, the question examined was
whether the NGT has the authority to decide questions relating to
the appointment of members of the SPCB. Having regard to the
provisions contained in the NGT Act, the Apex Court held that
questions relating to the appointment of Chairperson and members
of SPCB would not fall within the scope of Section 14 of the NGT
Act. This Court felt that the said decision is irrelevant in the context
of the present case and hence the same was not relied on in the
judgment. The view aforesaid may or may not be correct, but when
the contention raised by a party to the proceedings is taken note of
in the judgement, according to me, omission in referring to a
decision cited by a party is not a ground at all to seek review of the
judgment.
13. The next ground is that the decisions of the Apex
Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar,
(2011) 9 SCC 541 and in Standard Chartered Bank v.
Dharminder Bhohi, (2013) 15 SCC 341 relied on by the petitioner
in support of his contention that the NGT does not have power to
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
initiate suo motu proceedings have not been considered in the
judgment. As in the case of the earlier ground, the contention
aforesaid has been taken note of by the Court in the judgement.
The proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the cases is that the
Tribunals cannot exercise powers not expressly provided by the
statute and the Tribunals cannot assume the role of a court
different from the purpose for which it is established. The said
general proposition has also been taken note of in the judgement.
The contention of the petitioner that the NGT does not have power
to initiate suo motu proceedings was however rejected by the Court
holding that the NGT is empowered to do so in terms of the NGT
Act and the NGT Rules. The omission on the part of the Court in
referring to the citations relied on by the petitioner in support of a
proposition which was found to be irrelevant in the context,
according to me, is no ground to seek review of the judgement.
14. The next ground is that the contention of the
petitioner that the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Act and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act
do not confer any authority to the CPCB and the SPCBs to prescribe
any distance criteria for permitting stone quarrying. It is conceded
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
by the petitioner in the review petition that the said contention has
been taken note of in the judgment. As revealed from the
judgment, this Court has considered only the contentions relating to
the jurisdiction of the NGT to treat the representation of
respondents 3 to 115 as an application and has not dealt with the
right of respondents 3 to 115 to claim the relief sought for by them
in their application. The contention aforesaid is one raised by the
petitioner in the context of the right of respondents 3 to 115 to
claim the relief sought for by them in their application. When this
Court has chosen not to consider the questions relating to the right
of respondents 3 to 115 to claim relief in their application, non-
consideration the aforesaid contention does not confer on the
petitioner a right to seek review of the judgement.
15. The next ground is that the contention raised by
the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in
Goa Foundation v. Union of India and others, (2014) 6 SCC
590 that the Central Government alone is empowered in terms of
the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and the Rules
made thereunder to prescribe minimum distance criteria for
permitting stone quarrying and the CPCB does not have that power.
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
This again is a contention raised in the context of the right of
respondents 3 to 115 to claim relief from the NGT in their
application. For the reasons stated in paragraph 14 above, this
contention is also unsustainable.
16. The next ground is that the contention of the
petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Apex court in
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries(I)
Ltd. reported in 2019 SCC onLine SC 221 that the NGT does not
have the power to set aside or ignore Rule 10(f) of the Kerala Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 which permits quarrying activity
beyond 50 meters from residential houses and other human
inhabited sites has not been considered. As in the case of the
earlier ground, this is also a contention raised in the context of the
right of respondents 3 to 115 to claim relief from the NGT in their
application and therefore unsustainable.
17. The next ground is that after having set aside the
impugned order of the NGT, this Court was not justified in ordering
continuance of the interim order passed in the matters and thereby
deprived the petitioner from seeking licences and permissions for
operating quarry as per the existing statutory provisions. As
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
revealed from the judgement, this Court has ordered the interim
order referred to above to continue for the reasons stated in
paragraph 33 of the judgment sought to be reviewed. I have
already repelled the contention raised by the petitioner as to the
sustainability of one of the reasons stated in the said paragraph.
The question whether this Court was justified in ordering
continuance of the interim order for the reasons stated in
paragraph 33 is certainly a matter that could be examined by the
higher forums, but not at all by this Court in review jurisdiction.
Further, the petitioner has no case that this Court has no
jurisdiction to pass an interim order in the nature of one passed on
06.08.2020. The petitioner has also no case that this Court has no
jurisdiction to prescribe the distance criteria as done by the NGT in
appropriate cases in public interest. If that be so, according to me,
the authority of this Court to order continuance of the interim order
till the application of respondents 3 to 115 is finally disposed of by
the NGT cannot also be questioned by the petitioner. The ground
aforesaid is also therefore, unsustainable.
18. In the context of considering the scope of Section
14 of the NGT Act, this Court has observed in paragraph 22 of the
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
judgment as follows:
"It is all the more so since the representation of
respondents 3 to 115 raises a question arising out of the
implementation of the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act and the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act also, insofar as it is not disputed that stone
quarrying would inevitably pollute air and water in the
area."
Similarly, in the very same context, this Court has made the
following observations in paragraph 23 of the judgment:
"Having regard to the purpose for which the NGT is
established and having regard to the provisions in the NGT
Act and in the NGT Rules, especially Rule 24 of the NGT
Rules, and having regard to the interpretation given to the
said rule by the Apex Court in the case referred to above,
the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that the NGT is
not empowered under Section 15 of the NGT Act to grant
relief in the nature of general directions as done in the case
on hand."
Again, in the same context, this Court has observed in paragraph
24 of the judgment thus:
"In the light of the said discussion, the contention raised by
the petitioners that the grievance/dispute raised by
respondents 3 to 115 is not a dispute that falls within the
scope of Section 14 of the NGT Act and that the impugned
order is one that falls within the scope of Section 15 of the
NGT Act is only to be rejected and I do so."
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
The ground of the petitioner is that after having chosen to remit the
application to the NGT, this Court ought not have made the
aforesaid observations, for the same would preclude the petitioner
from defending the application before the NGT. As noted, the
aforesaid findings/observations have been made by this Court in
the context of considering the contention of the petitioner that the
application of respondents 3 to 115 is not one that falls within the
scope of Section 14 of the NGT Act. Having raised such a
contention, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that this
Court would not have made the aforesaid findings/observations. If
the said findings/observations are unsustainable, the petitioner is
free to canvass the correctness of the same in appropriate
proceedings, but not in a review petition. The ground aforesaid is
also therefore, not sustainable in the context of the review petition.
R.P. No.17 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.21566 of 2020
19. The additional ground urged by the petitioners in
this review petition is that Ext.P9 report filed by the SPCB before
the NGT is not one prepared after having had due deliberations with
various stakeholders as claimed by them. It is stated that the
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
quarry operators in the State were never consulted by the SPCB in
that process and since the interim order passed by this Court was
ordered to be continued till the disposal of the application by the
NGT based on Ext.P9 report, the said part of the judgment is liable
to be reviewed. First of all, I do not understand the role of the
quarry operators in the State in fixing the distance criteria for
permitting stone quarrying. Further, this Court has relied on Ext.P9
report in the judgment having regard to the fact that the same is
one prepared after due deliberations with some of the statutory
authorities and after consulting the CPCB. The question whether
this Court was justified in placing reliance on Ext.P9 report in
ordering continuance of the interim order passed in the matters is
one to be examined by the higher forums and not by this Court in
the review jurisdiction.
20. Another ground raised by the petitioners in this
review petition is that insofar as the petitioners are not parties to
the proceedings before the NGT, it was inappropriate for this Court
to direct the petitioners to move the NGT for vacating the interim
order passed by this Court in terms of which their right to obtain
permissions and licences for conducting the quarry referred to in
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
the writ petition was curtailed. I have found in the judgment that
the order impugned in the writ petitions was one passed by the NGT
having felt the need to have a stringent minimum distance criteria
from residential buildings and other human inhabited sites for
permitting stone quarrying. I have also found that the NGT has
jurisdiction to issue such directions, if it chooses to do so. The
interim order of this Court which was ordered to be continued, is
one passed pending disposal of the writ petitions challenging the
final order passed by the NGT. When this Court felt that this Court is
unable to dispose of the matter finally and that the contentions
raised are to be considered by the NGT, it was felt that the interim
order passed by this Court should continue till the matter is finally
decided by the NGT as an interim order of the NGT. The petitioners
cannot dispute the fact that if the said interim order was one
passed by the NGT, they ought to have moved the NGT for vacating
the same, notwithstanding the fact that they are not parties to the
proceedings. If that be so, they cannot be heard to contend that
this Court was not justified in issuing the direction aforesaid.
R.P. No.22 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.16864 of 2020
21. The essential ground raised by the petitioner in
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
this review petition also is one relating to the sustainability of the
judgment insofar as it directs continuance of the interim order
dated 06.08.2020, pending disposal of the matter by the NGT. The
petitioner was not a person who was operating any quarry at the
time when the impugned order was passed by the NGT. He states
that he was earlier operating a quarry and his application for
renewal of the quarrying permit was pending consideration at the
time when the NGT passed the order. I have already dealt with the
arguments relating to the sustainability of the judgement insofar as
it directs continuance of the interim order. For the very same
reasons, I reject the aforesaid ground raised by the petitioner as
well. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in The
State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment of
this Court, insofar it directs continuance of the interim order passed
in the writ petitions on 06.08.2020 till the disposal of the
application by the NGT is against the dictum in the said case. In the
case aforesaid, the dictum laid down was that the power of the
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be used for the
purpose of giving interim relief as the only and final relief on the
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
application. That was a case where the Apex Court found on facts
that relief could be claimed by the party only in a properly
instituted suit, but nevertheless granted him an interim order for a
period of three months or a week after the institution of the suit,
evidently for the purpose of enabling the party to obtain interim
order in the suit. As noted, this is a case where the NGT granted
certain reliefs to the party in a matter to be dealt with by the NGT
and when the same was impugned before this Court, this Court
stayed the operation of the impugned order in part. Later, when it
was found that the matter needs to be considered afresh by the
NGT, this Court remitted the matter to the NGT and ordered the
interim order passed in the matter to continue till the disposal of
the application by the NGT as an interim order of the NGT. The
decision in Madan Gopal Rungta, according to me, has no
application to the facts of the present case.
R.P. No.37 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.22019 of 2020
22. The additional ground raised by the petitioner in
this review petition is that the grievance voiced by the petitioner in
the writ petition was that though he had all the permissions,
licences and clearance required for conducting quarrying operations
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
and was in fact operating the quarry as on the date of the order of
the NGT impugned in the writ petitions, his application for renewal
of the quarrying permit which expired after the order of the NGT is
not being entertained by the competent authority in the light of the
order of the NGT. According to the petitioner, insofar as the
quarrying permit of the petitioner was valid and current as on the
date of the order of the NGT, this Court ought to have permitted
continuance of the quarrying operations till the matter is finally
decided by the NGT. As noted, in terms of the interim order dated
06.08.2020, this Court directed the status quo to be maintained
regarding the distance criteria as provided for under Rules 10(f) and
40(i) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules only in cases
where the quarrying permit/quarrying lease was valid and current
as on the date of the NGT order. As far as cases where applications
for fresh grant of quarrying permits/lease and applications for
renewal of quarrying permits/lease were pending as on the date of
the interim order, this Court clarified in the interim order that if
those cases do not fulfil the distance criteria impugned in the writ
petitions, their requests need not be considered. The operators
whose quarrying permit/ lease had expired before and after the NGT
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
order cannot be intelligibly differentiated. In so far as this court
precluded in terms of the interim order dated 6.8.2020 the
authorities from considering the applications for renewal of
quarrying permit/lease preferred by operators whose permit/lease
had expired prior to the NGT order, permitting consideration of
applications for renewal of quarrying permit/lease preferred by
operators whose permit/lease had expired after the NGT order,
would go against the spirit of the interim order passed by this court
on 6.8.2020. The said interim order having been in force right from
06.08.2020, I do not find any justification to modify the same, in
exercise of the review jurisdiction of this Court.
R.P. No.39 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.16474 of 2020
23. The additional ground raised in this review
petition is that this court acted illegally in directing the NGT to
consider the question as to whether the interim order passed by
this Court should be vacated. According to the petitioner, the NGT
has no jurisdiction to vacate an interim order passed by this Court.
Such a direction was issued by this court having regard to the
peculiar facts of this case and also the expertise of the NGT as a
specialised Tribunal in the field of environmental protection. When
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
this court confers power on the NGT or for that matter, to any other
forum to modify an interim arrangement made pending disposal of
the matter by the forum concerned, there would be no impediment
at all in the forum concerned in modifying the order passed by this
Court.
R.P. No.40 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.16953 of 2020
R.P. No.52 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.16762 of 2020
R.P. No.53 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.15962 of 2020
24. The grounds urged in these review petitions have
already been dealt with in the previous paragraphs.
25. In the course of hearing of these review petitions,
it is brought to the notice of this Court that applications for
renewal/revalidation of ancillary permissions, licences, clearances,
such as environmental clearance, consent under the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and the Air (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, explosive licences, D & O licence of the
local bodies etc. to be obtained for the purpose of conducting
quarrying operations based on quarrying permit/lease, are not
being considered by the competent authorities even in the case of
persons who were holding current and valid quarrying permits/lease
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
as on the date of the order of the NGT, namely 21.07.2020. The
same, according to me, is against the spirit of the interim order
dated 06.08.2020. It is, therefore, to be clarified that the judgment
sought to be reviewed will not preclude the competent authorities
from considering the applications for renewal/revalidation of
ancillary permissions, licences, clearances, such as environmental
clearance, consent under the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
explosive licences, D & O licence of the local bodies etc. in the case
of persons who were holding valid and current quarrying
permit/lease as on the date of the order of the NGT namely,
21.07.2020.
The review petitions, in the circumstances, are disposed
of with the clarification made in paragraph 25 above.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Mn/YKB/PV
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
APPENDIX OF RP 1/2021
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE MINING PLAN WHICH WAS
APPROVED ON 12.10.2021.
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF DGMS (TECH) (S&T)
CIRCULAR NO.7 OF 1997 DATED 29TH
AUGUST 1997.
R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases
APPENDIX OF RP 39/2021
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING MINING
AREAS OF 100 X 100 M.
ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING MINING
AREAS OF 200 X 200 M.
