Kerala High Court
Cheriyan K.Jose vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.16300 OF 2016(J)
PETITIONER:
CHERIYAN K.JOSE
AGED 49 YEARS
KIZHAKKEPARAMBIL, THIRUVAMBADI P.O., NJEEZHOOR,
KOTTAYAM.
BY ADVS.
SMT.SARITHA THOMAS
SRI.SAJEEVAN KURUKKUTTIYULLATHIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT
(A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
2 THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM,
PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
3 THE GEOLOGIST
MINING AND GEOLOGY DISTRICT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 004.
SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.16300 OF 2016(J) 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of March 2021
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
I) Call for the records relating to Exhibit P6 passed by the 3 rd respondent and
issue a Writ of Certiorari and quash the same to the extent of conditions
Nos.3 and 5 by which the petitioner is asked to produce the Panchayath
licence and Environmental clearance for renewing Exhibit P2.
II. Issue a declaration declaring that the petitioner in view of Exhibit P7 interim
order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, petitioner is not bound to obtain
environmental clearance for carrying out quarrying operations for the renewal
of Exhibit P2 quarrying permit.
III. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing 3rd respondent to consider and dispose
of the application of the petitioner to consider and dispose of the application
submitted by the petitioner to renew the Exhibit P2, in accordance with law,
without insisting for the production Panahayath licence and Environmental
clearance for renewing the Exhibit P2.
IV. Issue such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and
appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case.
2. According to the petitioner, he has applied before the 3 rd respondent
i.e., the Geologist, Mining & Geology, Kottayam, for the renewal of Exhibit P2
quarrying permit, which was issued in the year 2013. Petitioner has approached
this Court earlier and secured Exhibit P4 judgment in W.P.(C) No.27015/2014,
wherein a direction was issued to the Explosives Authority to consider the
application pending before the said authority.
3. Anyhow, case of the petitioner is that later explosive licence was
issued, but by the time the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 came
into force. Consequent to which, the 3rd respondent i.e., the Geologist insisted
for production of Panchayath licence and Environment Clearance for renewal of
the quarrying permit. The case projected by the petitioner is that the said
insistence made by the Geologist is against Exhibit P7 directions issued by the
Apex Court in SLP No.30130/2015 dated 7.12.2012, whereby in a leave petition
filed by one T.K.Thomas and others, an interim order was granted, directing
the authority under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules to renew all
existing permits for a further period of one year. Therefore, according to the
petitioner, petitioner is entitled to secure the relief sought for in the writ
petition.
4. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner and learned Senior
Government Pleader, I am of the considered opinion that the discussion of facts
made above would make it clear that the subject issue was in relation to the
year 2016. Admittedly, no interim orders were secured in the writ petition.
Moreover, Exhibit P1 consent issued by the Pollution Control Board shows that
the consent was valid only upto 10.12.2013. So also the subject issue, after
introduction of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, is to be
considered in accordance with the rules prescribed thereunder and at this
distance of time, petitioner cannot be permitted to operate the quarry,
overlooking the provisions of Rules, 2015.
5. Taking into account the above said aspects, I am of the view that,
petitioner has not made out any case to secure the relief as is sought for in the
writ petition. Needless to say, writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.
However, I make it clear that if the petitioner is still advised, petitioner is at
liberty to submit suitable application in accordance with law, before the
statutory authority.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
smv JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT
NO.PCB/KTM/ICO/2027/2013 DT. 24/4/2013
ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD TO THE PETITIONER
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-U QUARRYING PERMIT
NO.139/GBS/CRPS/2012-2013/335/DOY/2013
DATED 1/3/2013 FROM 3RD RESPONDENT - THE
GEOLOGIST, KOTTAYAM.
P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25/1/2013
BEARING NO.A4-1438-12 SUBMITTED BY THE
SECRETARY OF KOZHUVANAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH
P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/11/2014
IN WPC NO.27015/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 2/3/2016
P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT (LOI)
BEARING NO.283/DOY/ ML/2015 DATED 22/2/2016
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
7/12/2015 IN SLP(C)NO. 33130/2015 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4/1/2016 IN
WPC NO.94/2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
