M/S.Deepam Granite vs District Level Environment ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12972 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
 WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 12281 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

         M/S.DEEPAM GRANITES
         MURINGAMALA, VEMBALLOOR P.O., PALAKKAD,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.
         BY ADVS.
         PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
         SAJITHA GEORGE


RESPONDENTS:

   1   DISTRICT LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT
       AUTHORITY( DEIAA)
       PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
       CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678001.
   2   DISTRICT EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE(DEAC),
       REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, OFFICE OF
       THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX,
       T.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD-678014.
   3   STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY
       (SEIAA KERALA)
       REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, 4TH FLOOR,
       KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
       695001.
   4   STATE EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE,
       REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PALLIMUKKU,
       KANNAMMOOLA ROAD, OVERBRIDGE, VELAKUDI, TRIVANDRUM-
       695024.
         SRI. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL,GP

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.12281 of 2021            -2-




                            T.R. RAVI, J.
           ------------------------------------------------
                    W.P.(C)No.12281 of 2021
            --------------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 16th day of June, 2021
                             JUDGMENT

Admit. Standing Counsel takes notice for the State Level

Environment Impact Assessment Authority.

2. Heard.

3. The petitioner has been issued with quarrying licence for

the extraction of granite building stone as per Ext.P1 dated

30.08.2017. As per Ext.P1, lease has been granted for a period

of 12 years commencing from 30.08.2007 and ending on

29.8.2029. The petitioner was issued with the Environmental

Clearance ('EC' for short) by the 1 st respondent as per Ext.P2 on

21.4.2017 with a validity period of 5 years. The grievance of the

petitioner is that EC cannot be restricted to 5 years and should

actually have been issued for the project life. Reliance is placed

on Ext.P5 judgment dated 02.11.2020 in W.P.(C)No.18929/2020

and connected cases wherein this Court had considered several

writ petitions raising the same issue and had held that the

decision to limit the validity of the EC is against the terms and

spirit of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006

issued by the Central Government. The said writ petitions were

disposed of directing the regulatory bodies to call for additional

recommendations from the Appraisal Committee, after estimating

the life of the project of the petitioners therein in respect of

which ECs had been issued to them and thereafter revalidate the

ECs on the basis of the estimated life of the projects. It is

however made clear that recommendations of the Appraisal

Committees will not be binding on the regulatory bodies and in

case of disagreement with the recommendations regarding the

project life, regulatory bodies will be free to follow the procedure

mentioned in clause 8 of the 2006 notification mentioned above

for arriving at a decision regarding the life of the projects. The

petitioner also relies on Ext.P6 judgment dated 04.05.2021 in

W.P.(C)No.10928/2021, which was also disposed of in the same

lines.

4. Learned Standing Counsel fairly submitted that the

above stated judgments are still in force.

5. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed

of declaring that Ext.P2 EC dated 21.4.2017 to the extent it limits

the validity to 5 years is invalid. There will be a direction to the

regulatory bodies to call for additional recommendations from the

Appraisal Committee, after estimating the life of the project in

respect of which Exts.P1 and P2 have been issued and to

revalidate the EC on the above basis. It will be open to the

Appraisal Committee to call for additional information from the

petitioner and the petitioner shall be obliged to furnish such

details. It is made clear that the recommendations of the

Appraisal Committee will not be binding on the regulatory bodies

and if the regulatory bodies disagree with the recommendations

regarding the life of the project, they will be free to arrive at the

conclusion as to the life of the project by following the procedure

mentioned in clause 8 of the 2006 notification. The above

directions shall be complied with within a period of four months

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-//--

T.R. RAVI JUDGE

dsn

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12281/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF QUARRYING LEASE DATED 30.08.2017 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE DATED 21.04.2017 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER, VALID FOR 5 YEARS.

Exhibit P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF MINING PLAN SUBMITTED ALONG WITH APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF SEIAA DATED 31.10.2014.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF 89TH MEETING OF THE SEIAA DATED 27.02.2019.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 02.11.2020 IN W.P(C)NO.18929/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 04.05.2021 IN W.P(C)NO.10928/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.