Kerala High Court
T.K. Mani vs The Environmental Engineer on 4 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/13TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.30938 OF 2016(N)
PETITIONER:
T.K. MANI,
AGED 59, S/O. KOCHAPPUTTY,
THANTHIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
ELAMBAKAPPILLY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683544
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
SRI. BABY KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ERNAKULAM DIVISION II,
PERUMBAVOOR P.O.
2 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANADU P.O., ERNAKULAM
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KOOVAPPADY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
4 JAISON VARGHESE,
PARAPPURAM HOUSE MAVELIPPADY,
KOOVAPPADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN-683544
R1 BY SRI. T.NAVEEN, SC,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
R4 BY ADV. SRI.BINU PAUL
R2-3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI S.KANNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 04.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).19908/2018(K),
WP(C).29607/2018(A), WP(C).5839/2019(D), WP(C).18819/
2019(B), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
:2 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/13TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.19908 OF 2018
PETITIONERS:
1 BABY,
KALABATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE,
ELAMKAPPILLY P.O.,
PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683542.
2 MANI T.K.,
THABIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
ELAMKAPPILLY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683542.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AUTHORITY, (DEI AA) ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030.
2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT,
ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682030.
3 THE GEOLOGIST,
DISTRICT OFFICE OF MINING & GEOLOGY,
ERNAKULAM,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
KOCHI-682030.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
:3 :
4 THE KOOVAPPADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
KOOVAPPADY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683544.
5 JAISON VARGHESE,
PARAPPURAM HOUSE,
MAVALIPPADY, KOOVAPPADY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683544.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN
R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH,SC,KOOVAPPADY GRAMA
PANCH
R5 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL THOMAS(T),SC
R5 BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RASHMI, SC
R6 BY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER
AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 04.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).30938/2016(N),
WP(C).29607/2018(A), WP(C).5839/2019(D), WP(C).18819/
2019(B), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
:4 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/13TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.29607 OF 2018(A)
PETITIONERS:
1 BABY,
KALABATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE,
ELAMKAPPILLY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683542
2 MANI.T.K,
THABIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
ELAMKAPPILLY.P.O.,
PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683542.
BY ADV. GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-685001
2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
3 THE GEOLOGIST,
DISTRICT OFFICE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD,
KOCHI-682030.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
:5 :
4 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
PERUMBAVOOR.P.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683542.
5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PERIYAR VALLEY IRRIGATION PROJECT (PVIP),
DIVISION NO.1,
PERUMBAVOOR.P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683542.
6 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
PROJECT DIVISION,
PERUMBAVOOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683542
7 JAISON VARGHESE,
PARAPPURAM HOUSE,
MAVALIPPADY, KOOVAPPADY P.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683544
R1-5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S. KANNAN
R4 BY ADV. NAVEEN.T, SC
R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC
R7 BY ADV. SRI.VINEETH KURIAKOSE
R7 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL THOMAS(T)
R7 BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RASHMI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 04.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).30938/2016(N),
WP(C).19908/2018(K), WP(C).5839/2019(D), WP(C).18819/
2019(B), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
:6 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/13TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.5839 OF 2019(D)
PETITIONERS:
1 BABY,
AGED 40 YEARS,
KALABATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, ELAMKAPPILLY P.O.,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683542.
2 MANI T.K.,
THABIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELAMKAPPILLY P.O.,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683542.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
CENTRAL REGION ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11.
2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
ALUVA, PIN-683101.
3 THE CENTRE FOR EARTH SCIENCE STUDIES,
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR,
P.V. NO.7250, AKKULAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695031.
4 JAISON VARGHESE,
PARAPPURAM HOUSE,
MAVALIPPADY,
KOOVAPPADY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683544.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
:7 :
5 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE,
ERNAKULAM-682011.
6 THE TAHSILDAR,
KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE,
PERUMBAVOOR P.O., PIN-683542.
ADDL. 7 DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES,
KENDRIYA BHAVAN,
KAKKANAD - 682 030
IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R7 AS PER ORDER DATED
07/06/2019 IN I.A.1/2019.
R1-2 BY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
R3 BY SRI.TULASI PANICKER, CGC
R4 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL THOMAS(T)
R4 BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RASHMI
R5-6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 04.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).30938/2016(N),
WP(C).19908/2018(K), WP(C).29607/2018(A), WP(C).18819/
2019(B), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
:8 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021/13TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.18819 OF 2019(B)
PETITIONER:
PRASAD.E.K,
AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O. KURUVILA,
RESIDING AT ELAVAMKUDY HOUSE,
KOOVAPPADY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 544.
BY ADVS.
SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE
SRI.JAI GEORGE
SMT.P.ANITHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CHAIRMAN, THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (DEIAA),
ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 030.
2 THE GEOLOGIST,
DISTRICT OFFICE, MINING AND GEOLOGY,
ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI- 682 030.
3 THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVE
(PESO),
A AND D WING, BLOCK 1-8, II FLOOR,
SASTHRI BHAVAN,
26 HADDOUS ROAD,
NUNGAMBAKKAM,
CHENNAI - 600 006.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
:9 :
4 THE DIRECTOR OF MINE SAFETY,
100, BDA COMPLEX, KHB BLOCK,
KORAMANGALA, PIN - 560 034,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA STATE.
5 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA, MINI CIVIL STATION,
MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., PIN - 686 673.
6 JAISON VARGHESE,
PARAPURATHU HOUSE,
KOOVAPPADY P.O.,
PERUMBAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 544.
7 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ALUVA, PIN - 683 101.
8 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PERIYAR VALLEY IRRIGATION PROJECT,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PATTAL,
PERUMBAVOOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 542.
9 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KODANAD POLICE STATION,
KODANAD P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 544.
R1-2,R5,R8-9 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.S.KANNAN
R4 BY SRI.ROJO JOSEPH, CGC
R6 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL THOMAS(T)
R6 BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RASHMI
R7 BY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER
AUTHORITY
SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 04.03.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).30938/2016(N),
WP(C).19908/2018(K), WP(C).29607/2018(A), WP(C).5839/
2019(D), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
: 10 :
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) Nos.30938 of 2016, 19908 & 29607 of 2018,
5839 and 18819 of 2019
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 4th day of March, 2021
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
These writ petitions are filed against quarrying
operations in the land comprised in Survey Nos.397/4-1,
397/4-2, 397/7-2, 398/4, 398/5 and 397/6 in Koovappady
Village of Kunnathunad Taluk. Hence, they are heard
together and being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. W.P.(C) No.30938/2016 has been filed by a
resident of Koovappady Panchayat challenging Ext.P1
quarrying permit issued by the Department of Mining and
Geology, Government of Kerala and Ext.P6 Consent to
Operate issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board.
The validity of Ext.P1 expired on 25.11.2016 and that of
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
Ext.P6, on 31.03.2017. Hence, this writ petition has become
infructuous.
3. W.P.(C) No.19908/2018 has been filed by two local
residents challenging Ext.P2 Environmental Clearance (EC)
given by the District Environmental Impact Assessments
Authority (DEIAA). Ext.P9 D&O Licence issued by the Grama
Panchayat is also under challenge, but the validity of the D&O
Licence stands expired on 03.05.2018.
4. W.P.(C) No.29607/2018 has been filed by the
petitioners challenging Ext.P1 NOC for quarrying, issued by
the Executive Engineer, Periyar Valley Irrigation Project
(PVIP). The validity of Ext.P1 stands expired on expiry of one
year period from 11.07.2018. The validity of Ext.P3 Quarrying
permit which is also under challenge, stands expired on
11.06.2019. Ext.P4 Consent to Operate issued by the Kerala
Pollution Control Board, which is valid up to 31.03.2017, is
also under challenge in this writ petition.
5. In W.P.(C) No.5839/2019, the petitioners seek to
quash Ext.P3 NOC issued by the Executive Engineer, Public
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
Health Division, KWA, Aluva and direct respondents 5 and 6
to ensure that registered rubber plantations exempted under
the Kerala Land Reforms Act are not used for running granite
quarry.
6. W.P.(C) No.18819/2019 has been filed challenging
Ext.P2 Environment Clearance and Ext.P6 Explosive Licence
in view of the pendency of Ext.P4 Charge Sheet. The parties
to the writ petitions are referred to in this judgment, as they
are arrayed in W.P.(C) No.19908/2018 (unless otherwise
specified), for convenience.
7. In W.P.(C) No.19908/2018, the petitioners would
state that they are residing near the proposed quarry in
Koovappady Village, which is posing a threat to the residential
houses of the petitioners and others. The 5 th respondent-
Project Proponent was conducting granite quarry for several
years in the neighbourhood. Due to heavy blasting, houses
including those of the petitioners were damaged. The 5 th
respondent applied for Environmental Clearance (EC) for
continuing the operation of quarry suppressing relevant facts.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
Existence of irrigation canals, bridges, water reservoirs etc.
were suppressed in the application for Environmental
Clearance (EC). Existence of pending litigation was
suppressed in EC application. Though the petitioners and
others raised valid objections against grant of environmental
clearance, the 1st respondent District Environmental Impact
Assessment Authority (DEIAA), Ernakulam issued Ext.P2 EC.
The Panchayat authorities granted licence to the unit, on an
incomplete application. Hence, Ext.P2 EC and Ext.P9 D&O
licence are liable to be set aside.
8. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.19908/2018 are the
petitioners in W.P.(C) No.29607/2018. In W.P.(C)
No.29607/2018, the petitioners contended that an irrigation
canal is passing within 190 m. of the quarrying site. There are
six bridges over the canal within a radius of 1 km. There are
two public water resources of Kerala Water Authority within a
radius of 400 m. Ext.P1 NOC has been issued by the
Executive Engineer illegally, ignoring all these facts. No
norms are laid down by the Government for grant of NOC for
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
running quarries near canals, water tanks, bridges etc.
Originally, the Second proviso to Rule 10 of the Kerala Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 required a minimum distance
of 100 metres from residential houses, public roads etc. for
running granite quarry. The rules were illegally amended as
per Ext.P2 specifying the distance as "within the distance
specified by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board from
time to time". The amendment is illegal. Therefore, Ext.P3
quarrying permit is liable to be set aside.
9. In W.P.(C) No.5839/2019 filed by the very same
petitioners, it has been alleged that the Executive Engineer,
PH Division, KWA has issued Ext.P3 NOC, without any
authority. The Executive Engineer, KWA is incompetent to
give recommendations or reports. Ext.P3 has been issued
without ensuring the protection of water tanks from the
probable damage that may result from the operation of quarry.
Hence, Ext.P3 is liable to be quashed.
10. In W.P.(C) No.18819/2019 filed by another resident
of Koovappady Grama Panchayat, the petitioner stated that
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
the EC has been issued by the Chairman, DEIAA in violation
of guidelines and statutory provisions. The DEIAA has failed
to enquire into and satisfy whether data provided in the
application for EC were correct. The DEIAA failed to obtain
NOC from the Executive Engineer, KWA and Executive
Engineer, PVIP before granting EC. The DEIAA failed to take
note of the criminal case registered against the grantee of EC
and his Blaster, which showed that serious physical injury was
sustained by a student due to quarrying operation.
11. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent-
Geologist in W.P.(C) No.19908/2018, the 3rd respondent
alleged that the petitioners have no bona fides and have not
made out a case to warrant interference of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Quarrying permit has
been issued after an inspection conducted on 15.02.2017 and
after due process of law. The quarrying area satisfied
statutory distance criteria as contemplated under law. The 5 th
respondent has obtained all statutory permissions and
licences to hold a valid quarrying permit. The irrigation canal
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
is at a distance of 750 m. from the quarrying area. The
nearest road is 107 m. far and the nearest residential building
is at a distance of 109 m. Before issuing Ext.P2 EC, the 1 st
petitioner was heard. The DEIAA also conducted a site
inspection on 22.06.2018. There are no residential or other
structures within the prohibitory distance. Though Ext.P6 stop
memo was issued, the 5 th respondent obtained Ext.P2 EC.
The petitioners have alternate statutory remedy.
12. The 5th respondent, who is the grantee of EC, filed
his counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit. The 5 th
respondent has obtained all valid licences/permissions/NOC
from statutory authorities to conduct quarrying operations. In
the additional counter affidavit, the 5 th respondent stated that
the petitioners have absolutely no cause of action. The
residence of petitioners is almost 250 m. far from the
quarrying site. For challenging environmental clearance and
the D&O licence, there are effective alternative statutory
remedies. There is no reason to believe that the petitioners'
house buildings are damaged due to quarrying operations.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
The allegation that there are six bridges over the canal, is
denied. The existence of human habitations were properly
shown in the sketch submitted to the authorities. The 1 st
respondent has considered the objections raised by local
residents. A committee deputed by the DEIAA inspected the
site before grant of EC. The writ petition is therefore liable to
be dismissed.
13. The 4th respondent, who is Secretary to the Grama
Panchayat, stated in his counter affidavit that entire aspects
were considered on merits before issuing license to conduct
quarrying operations. Ext.P2 EC was taken into account by
the Panchayat. As the expert body had considered all aspects
of the case, the Panchayat Committee resolved to grant
licence to the 5th respondent.
14. The counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19908
of 2018 argued that Ext.P2 EC is obtained by deliberate
concealment of relevant materials and submitting incorrect
and misleading data before the DEIAA. The DEIAA insisted
prior NOC from the Irrigation Department which owned a
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
canal and a number of bridges near the quarry. Prior NOC of
Kerala Water Authority was also not obtained. And later NOC
was issued in violation of Section 40(2) of the Kerala Irrigation
and Water Conservation Act, 2003.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
argued that the DEIAA who granted Ext.P2 EC did not consist
of competent persons for proper environmental impact
assessment. There were no experts in the field of
groundwater, in the committee. Opinion of structural
engineers were not obtained. The learned counsel for the
petitioner further argued that DEIAA is not legally competent
to issue Ext.P2 EC since EC for quarries below 5 Hectares is
to be issued only by State Environmental Impact Assessment
Authority. There are procedural lapses in the proceedings
leading to Ext.P2. The petitioners are entitled to live in a
pollution free atmosphere. The commercial interest of the 5 th
respondent cannot supersede the right guaranteed to the
petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
16. Ext.P9 D&O licence ought to have been issued by
the Secretary. In this case, it is seen that Ext.P9 D&O licence
has been issued on the basis of the decision taken by the
Committee of the Grama Panchayat.
17. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in
Sobin P.K. v. District Geologist, Ernakulam and others
[2020 (1) KHC 1], the learned counsel for the petitioner
argued that Section 40(2) of the Kerala Irrigation and Water
Conservation Act, 2003 would take in Water Tanks
maintained by the Kerala Water Authority and NOC of Kerala
Water Authority was also necessary. Relying on the judgment
of this Court in Joseph v. State of Kerala [2003 (3) KLT 296],
the learned counsel argued that the petitioners have a
superior right to life under Article 226 and no privilege can be
given to any Project Proponent which would undermine the
right to life of petitioners.
18. The learned counsel for the 5 th respondent, on the
other hand, argued that the petitioners have no locus standi to
file the writ petition as none of their fundamental rights are
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
infringed. The 5th respondent had disclosed all facts and
made available all relevant documents before the DEIAA for
grant of EC. All the petitioners are residing beyond the
statutory limits and they have no legal right to approach this
court. The DEIAA has considered the issues raised by the
petitioners.
19. The 5th respondent further stated that the
petitioners had approached the Kerala State Human Rights
Commission. They forwarded complaint to DEIAA also. Now,
by discarding the jurisdiction of the Human Rights
Commission and DEIAA, the petitioners have filed these writ
petitions. The writ petitions are abuse of the process of this
Court. The petitioners have effective alternate remedy
available. The writ petitions are therefore liable to be
dismissed.
20. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
in the writ petitions and the learned Government Pleader and
the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
21. The petitioners state that an irrigation canal is
passing at a distance of 750 m. from the quarrying site. There
are six bridges over the canal within a radius of 1 Km. and a
public water reservoir within a radius of 400 m. The Kerala
Irrigation and Water Conservation Act mandates written
permission from Irrigation Officer for conducting mining or
quarrying operation. Ext.P2 is issued without obtaining
permission from the 2nd respondent-Executive Engineer,
Irrigation Department. An application for Environmental
Clearance presupposes that the applicant has obtained a
Consent to Operate from the Pollution Control Board,
Explosive Licence issued by a competent authority, D&O
licence from Local Self Government and approved mining
plan. A pre-feesibility report and district survey report are to
be uploaded along with the application for EC.
22. Ext.P2 EC would show that a Sub Committee of the
DEAC visited the quarry project site and submitted a report.
The Committee opined that the eco-friendly plan presented by
the 5th respondent is appreciative to incorporate the scientific
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
and modern methods of mining. The inspection team looked
into the impacts of ecosystem, flora, fauna, soil, Landform and
air quality which are likely to be altered on starting mining
operations. The potential for natural hazards like landslides,
surface shift, erosion, flooding or any adverse environmental
conditions were ruled out.
23. The inspection also revealed that there are no
perennial watercourses or streams within the prohibited area.
The proposed site did not possess any high-quality or valuable
resources other than granite building stone. Therefore, the
DEAC approved the mining project and recommended the
DEIAA to grant EC.
24. The DEIAA considered the recommendations of the
DEAC. The DEIAA noticed that there are complaints about
some cracks on nearby buildings. The DEIAA noted that the
shortest distance of the proposed quarry and the residences
in question is 100 m. The complainants did not submit any
documents in support of their claims. Considering the
recommendations of the DEAC, it was decided by the DEIAA
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
to grant Environmental Clearance. Ext.P2 would disclose that
the DEIAA had caused a site inspection before issuance of
EC and found that there are no residences within the statutory
distance. Accordingly, the DEIAA issued EC on certain
conditions, one of which was that all statutory clearances
should be obtained as applicable, by the Project Proponent
from the respective competent authorities including that for
blasting and storage of explosives.
25. It has to be noted that the DEIAA caused a site
inspection and did not notice any suppression of facts or
misleading information in the application for EC submitted by
the Project Proponent. As regards criminal proceedings
against the 5th respondent, it has been stated that all accused
in the said S.C. No.646/2016 were acquitted. The allegation
against Ext.P9 D&O licence is that the application submitted
by the 5th respondent was incomplete. However, the
Secretary to the Grama Panchayat has filed affidavit to the
effect that the application submitted by the 5 th respondent was
complete in all respects.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
26. The petitioners contend that the amendments made
to Rule 10 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules,
2015, are illegal. There is no allegation that the Rules have
been amended by an authority who is not competent to do so.
The Rules do not infringe any provisions of Part III of the
Constitution of India. I do not find any merit in the contention
of the petitioners that the authorities under the Kerala Minor
Mineral Concession Rules cannot adopt the distance criteria
specified by the Kerala Pollution Control Board.
27. It is seen that the 4th respondent-Grama Panchayat
has issued D&O licence to the Project Proponent. The 4 th
respondent considered the fact that Ext.P2 EC was granted by
an expert body consisting of the District Collector, Sub
Collector, DFO and Member of National Board for Wildlife.
Elements including pollution and impact on wildlife were also
considered. Though certain persons complained against
grant of D&O licence to the 5th respondent, the objections
were found not based on any materials. It was under such
circumstances that the Panchayat granted D&O licence.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
28. Thus, it is evident that the DEIAA has granted EC,
after causing an inspection of the locality and considering the
objections of the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners
is that there are residences, bridges, canals and water
reservoirs within prohibited distance. The argument of the
petitioners is disputed by the official respondents as well as
the 5th respondent. Though the petitioners relied on certain
documents to establish their case in this regard, since the
facts involved are disputed, this court in exercise of the
jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot enter into a factual
adjudication on those aspects.
29. The petitioners argue that under the Kerala
Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, it is mandatory to
obtain written permission from Irrigation Officer for conducting
mining or quarrying operations using explosives within a
radius of 1 km. 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 petitioners rely on Ext.P3 judgment of a
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
learned Single judge in W.P.(C) No.23565/2017, wherein it
has been held that recommendations made by DEAC without
considering the impact of quarrying operations within the
prohibited distance would be illegal. Hence, Ext.P2 EC is to
be declared as illegal.
30. In the case of the 5th respondent, the Executive
Engineer, PVIP No.1, Perumbavoor has issued Ext.R5(f)
proceedings dated 11.07.2018 granting NOC for conducting
quarrying operations. The Executive Engineer of the P.H.
Division, KWA has also issued Ext.P3 NOC (in W.P.(C)
No.5839/2019). It is true that Ext.P2 EC was issued prior to
the issuance of Ext.R5(f) and Ext.P3 NOC. Since the
competent authority under the Irrigation Department and KWA
have issued NOC, this Court does not deem it necessary to
interfere with Ext.P2 EC for the sole reason that the DEIAA
has issued EC before the issuance of NOC by the Irrigation
Engineer.
31. It is submitted at the Bar that WA No.2388/2017 is
pending against Ext.P3 judgment in W.P.(C) No.23565/2017.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
32. It is to be noted that the petitioners have an
alternate remedy against Ext.P2 EC under Section 16 of the
National Green Tribunal Act. When an alternate remedy is
available, normally the petitioners cannot be permitted to
bypass the said remedy. The petitioners have not made out a
case warranting interference in Ext.P2 EC, in exercise of the
powers of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. It may also be noted that Clause 52 of Ext.P2 gives
power to the authorities to withdraw the EC for concealment of
any factual data. Clause 53 provides that the DEIAA may
revoke or suspend the EC for non-implementation of any of
the conditions in the interest of environmental protection.
33. The petitioners have challenged Ext.P9 D&O
licence issued by the Grama Panchayat. The 4 th respondent
has specifically stated that the application submitted by the 5 th
respondent for grant of D&O licence was complete in all
respects and it is evident that the 4 th respondent has also
considered the field report. In the circumstances, this Court
does not find any reason to hold that Ext.P9 D&O licence was
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
issued illegally.
34. In W.P.(C) No.29607/2018, the grievance of the
petitioners is regarding issuance of Ext.P1 NOC by the
Executive Engineer, PVIP. According to the petitioner,
Clause 4 of Ext.P1 provides that if due to the functioning of
the quarry, the working of canal is put to danger, the quarry
owner would be liable to restore the canal at own expense
without any objection. The learned counsel for the petitioner
would contend that the said condition would imply that canal
will be ruined and water supply will be stopped due to
quarrying operations. The condition mentioned in Ext.P1 is
unenforceable as there is no agreement from the part of the
Project Proponent for the reconstruction of the canal in case
of damage.
35. The said argument is not acceptable. When NOC
has been granted on such condition, if the Project Proponent
proceed with the quarrying operation on the strength of such
NOC, it would constitute an enforceable condition under
which the Project Proponent will be liable to restore the canal
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
in case of damage due to quarrying operations.
Respondents 1 to 6 have statutory mechanism to recover any
damage in case it happens due to the functioning of the
quarry. The argument of the petitioners is therefore liable to
be rejected.
36. The petitioners challenged Ext.P2 amendments to
Rules 10 and 40 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 2015 in order to impugn Ext.P3 quarrying permit. The
contention is that the 1st respondent has subdelegate its
rights of making rules. The amendment provides that the
prohibited distance should be those specified by the Kerala
State Pollution Control Board from time to time, which
prescription is vague, contend the petitioners. It is the
conditions laid down by the government which should be
followed by the Pollution Control Board and not vice versa.
Going through the amended provisions, this court finds no
excessive delegation. Pollution Control Board is an expert
statutory body which is competent to lay down criteria for
permitting potentially polluting activities including quarries.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
There is no illegality in the action of the authorities in adopting
the distance criteria laid down by the Pollution Control Board.
37. The challenge in W.P.(C) No.5839/2019 is against
Ext.P3 NOC in the writ petition issued to the Project
Proponent, by the Executive Engineer, P.H. Division, KWA. It
is alleged that said Executive Engineer is not the Authority
competent to issue NOC for quarrying operations. Only
SEIAA can give clearance. The said Ext.P3 is issued without
regard to probability of damage. While issuing the said
Ext.P3 NOC, the authority under the KWA noted that the site
of the quarry is at a radial distance of 480 m. away from the 9
lakh capacity overhead tank and 281 m. away from the
defunct OH tank of 65000 litres capacity.
38. Before issuing notice NOC, the advise of the
Director, Centre for Earth Science Studies and National
Centre for Earth Science Studies were obtained. In their
studies, it was noted that leaks are occurring in the pipelines
even when quarries are not functioning. The leak is due to
heavy traffic on the road and for other technical reasons such
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
as air blocks in the road. The old-age of pipes, pressure
variation etc. are also contributing to the leaks. Therefore,
leakages in pipelines are not as a result of quarrying
operation. In fact, the Centre for Earth Science Studies has
also ruled out the possibility of falling rock pieces beyond the
buffer distance of hundred metres. Therefore, the structures
do not face any danger. As the Executive Engineer, PH
Division, Kerala Water Authority has issued the NOC after
obtaining report of Centre for Earth Science Studies, this
Court do not find any reason to interfere with the NOC.
39. In W.P.(C) No.18819/2019, the challenge is against
Ext.P2 EC and Ext.P6 Explosives Licence issued to the
Project Proponent. The grounds on which the EC is
challenged are similar to the grounds urged in W.P.(C)
No.19908/2018, which are already dealt with herein above.
The grievance against issuance of Ext.P6 Explosives Licence,
is that the Blasters Certificate issued to the Blaster engaged
by the Project Proponent, Ext.P7, has already expired and
hence Ext.P6 Explosives Licence is not liable to be renewed.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
40. From the pleadings and arguments, it has come out
that there was a criminal case against the Project Proponent,
SC No.646/2016 and the court has acquitted all the accused.
As regards the validity of Ext.P6 Explosives Licence, the
validity of Ext.P6 licence stands expired on 31.03.2019.
Therefore, this Court finds no reason to adjudicate on the
validity of the said expired licence at this stage.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ
petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/01.03.2021
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30938/2016
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT
ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENSE
OBTAINED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED
IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 24.08.2016
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED
BY THE LOCAL PEOPLE BEFORE THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE
DISTANCES, ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OT OPERATE
ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR
EXHIBIT P8: PHOTOS SHOWING THE DAMAGES CAUSED TO
THE PETITIONER'S HOUSE
EXHIBIT P8(A): PHOTOS SHOWING THE DAMAGES CAUSED TO
THE NEARBY RESIDENCE DUE TO THE QUARRY
OPERATION OF 4TH RESPONDENT
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19908/2018
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING
THE DAMAGES CAUSED TO THE RESIDENTIAL
BUILING OF THE1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING
THE DAMAGES CAUSED TO THE RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
CERTIFICATE DATED 19/3/2018.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
01/11/2017 IN WPC NO. 23565 FO 2017
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 6/01/2018 OF
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
MUVATTUPUZHA SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
24/10/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE KERALA STATE
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED
27/9/2016
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
12/7/2017
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
10/01/2018
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPU OF THE PANCHAYATH LICENCE
DATED 3/5/2018
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR LICENCE.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
GRANT OF EXT. P9 LICENCE.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY FO THE PARTITION DEED DATED
30.9.1988.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED
14.11.1988.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED
15.7.2004.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE BLASTERS CERTIFICATE
DATED 28.3.2018.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED
13.9.2014.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH
SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT FOR
OBTAINING EXT.P2 E.C.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
THE METALLIFEROUS MINES REGULATIONS.
EXHIBIT P19 PHOTOGRAPHS.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R3A A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE DISTYRICT ENVIRONMENT IMPACT
ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM,
PURSUANT TO THE SITE INSPECTION
CARRIED OUT ON 22/6/2018
EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 19.3.2018
ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY.
EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED
30.9.2014 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF
CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, CHENNAI.
EXHIBIT R5(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED
5.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE JOINT CHIEF
CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, CHENNAI.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
EXHIBIT R5(D) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE
DATED 28.3.2018 FILE
NO.PCB/EKM/DO2/ICO-QR-R3/129/2015
ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD.
EXHIBIT R5(E) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.340/18-19
DATED 3.5.2018 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER FROM THE KOOVAPPADY GRAMA
PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT R5(F) TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, P.V.I.P DIVISION NO.1 DATED
11.7.2018.
EXHIBIT R5(G) TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT FOR
EXTRACTION OF GRANITE BUILDING STONE
DATED 12.6.2018 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
MINING AND GEOLOGY.
EXHIBIT R5(H) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
25.6.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 4 MEMBER
COMMITTEE DEPUTED BY THE DEIAA.
EXHIBIT R5(I) TRUE COPY OF NOC DATED 16.2.2019
ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PH
DIVISION, ALUVA.
EXHIBIT R5(J) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
16.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, PH DIVISION, ALUVA SHOWING
REMITTANCE OF RS.50,000/-.
EXHIBIT R5(K) TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED
16.4.2019 SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE KWA.
EXHIBIT R5(L) TRUE COPY OF REPLY ISSUED BY THE
CONTROLLER OF EXPOLISVES, ERNAKULAM TO
THE KWA.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29607/2018
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION
CERTIFICATE DATED 11/07/2018 ISSUED BY
THE HEALTH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
19/05/2015 PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GEOLOGICAL PERMIT
DATED 12.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE
DATED 28/03/2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
THE METTALIFEROUS MINING REGULATIONS.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF THE NOISE
POLLUTION (REGULATION AND
CONTROL)RULES 2000.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R7(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT
EXECUTED WITH THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OF WATER IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT DATED
11/07/2018.
EXHIBIT R7(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 19/03/2018
ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY.
EXHIBIT R7(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED
30/09/2014 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF
CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, CHENNAI.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
EXHIBIT R7(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED
05/04/2018 ISSUED BY THE JOINT CHIEF
CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, CHENNAI.
EXHIBIT R7(E) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE
DATED 28/03/2018 FILE NO.
PCB/EKM/DO2/ICO-QR-R3/129/2015 ISSUED
BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD.
EXHIBIT R7(F) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.340/18-19
DATED 03/05/2018 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER FROM THE KOOVAPPADY GRAMA
PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT R7(G) TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER P.V.I.P. DIVISION NO.1 DATED
11/07/2018.
EXHIBIT R7(H) TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT FOR
EXTRACTION OF GRANITE BUILDING STONE
DATED 12/06/2018 ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
MINING AND GEOLOGY.
EXHIBIT R7(I) TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NO. GO
NO.25/2017/ID DATED 22/06/2017.
EXHIBIT R7(J) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC
NO.19908/2018 DATED 14/08/2018.
EXHIBIT R7(K) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
02/11/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER
AUTHORITY.
EXHIBIT R7(L) TRUE COPY OF NOC DATED 16/02/2019
ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PH
DIVISION, ALUVA.
EXHIBIT R7(M) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
16/02/2019 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, PH DIVISION, ALUVA SHOWING
REMITTANCE OF RS. 50,000/-.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
EXHIBIT R7(N) TRUE COPY OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM
THE OFFICE OF THE PVIP SUB DIVISION,
PERUMBAVOOR REGARDING EXISTENCE OF
CULVERTS AND FOOT BRIDGES.
EXHIBIT R3(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT IMPACT
ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM,
PURSUANT TO THE SITE INSPECTION
CARRIED OUT ON 22/06/2018.
EXHIBIT R3(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH
SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R5(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
11.07.2018 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE
7TH RESPONDENT AND THE DEPARTMENT.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5839/2019
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET DATED
13.9.2014
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
DATED 3.10.2018 FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT IN WPC.29607/2018
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC DATED 16.2.2019
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
16.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED
15.7.2004
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED
14.11.1988
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DATED
30.9.1988
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
06/01/2018 PRESENTED BY RDO,
MOOVATTUPUZHA BEFORE THE STATE HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
THE PUBLIC LIABILITY (INSURANCE) ACT,
1991.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
13/09/2018 IN OA NO. 186/2016 AND
CONNECTED CASES BY NGT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
11/12/2018 IN OA NO. 520/2016 AND
CONNECTED CASES BY NGT.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE III UNDER
THE NOISE POLLUTION (REGULATION AND
CONTROL) RULES 2000.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE IV UNDER
RULE 99 OF THE EXPLOSIVE RULES.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED BY NOC.
EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
ISSUED BY THE DEIAA, ERNAKULAM DATED
19/03/2018.
EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF LICENSE TO POSSESS AND
USE EXPLOSIVE TO THIS RESPONDENT DATED
30/09/2014.
EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF INTEGRATED CONSENT TO
OPERATE RENEWED BY THE KERALA STATE
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DATED
28/03/2018, VALID UPTO 18/03/2021.
EXHIBIT R4(D) TRUE COPY OF LICENSE ISSUED TO THIS
RESPONDENT BY THE KOOVAPPADI GRAMA
PANCHAYAT FOR THE PERIOD 2018-2019.
EXHIBIT R4(E) TRUE COPY OF NOC NO.A2-1541/2018,
DATED 11/07/2018 ISSUED BY THE
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT R4(F) TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT
DATED 12/06/2018, VALID UPTO
11/06/2019.
EXHIBIT R4(G) TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICE, SHOWING REMITTANCE OF
TAX IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF THIS
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R4(H) TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, ACKNOWLEDGING THE
REMITTANCE OF LAND TAX IN RESPECT OF
THE PROPERTY OF SRI. ANIL VARGHESE.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
EXHIBIT R4(I) TRUE COPY OF CONSENT ISSUED BY SRI.
ANIL VARGHESE IN FAVOUR OF THIS
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R4(J) TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER CERTIFYING THAT THIS
RESPONDENT DO NOT HAVE ANY LAND IN
EXCESS OF CEILING LIMIT.
EXHIBIT R4(K) TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER CERTIFYING THAT MR.
ANIL VARGHESE DO NOT HAVE ANY LAND IN
EXCESS OF CEILING LIMIT.
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18819/2019
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT
ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
12.06.2018.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
CLEARANCE NO.22/2018 ISSUED BY DEIAA
DATED 19.03.2018.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY
5TH RESPONDENT DATED 06.01.2018.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED
BEFORE THE JFCM COURT,KURUPPAMPADY BY
9TH RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO. 1312 DATED
13.09.2014.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED
BY ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PVIP
TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED
09.07.2018.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVES LICENSE
ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
30.09.2014.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF BLASTERS CERTIFICATE OF
COMPETENCY DATED 05.04.2019.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R6 A TRUE COPY OF SITE PLAN APPROVED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER.
EXHIBIT R6 B TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
COMMITTEE DEPUTED BY THE DEIAA.
EXHIBIT R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT IMPACT
ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM,
PURSUANT TO THE SITE INSPECTION
CARRIED OUT ON 22.6.2018
WP(C) No.30938/2016 & Connected cases
EXHIBIT R4(1) TRUE COPY OF THE SAID LETTER DATED
28.6.2019 DIRECTING THE 6TH RESPONDENT
TO SUBMITE DATA FOR GENERATION OF MINE
CODE
SR
