Crescent Particles Private ... vs State Environment Impact ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7633 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

 THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                   WP(C).No.5631 OF 2021(D)


PETITIONER/S:

             CRESCENT PARTICLES PRIVATE LIMITED
             SIVANKOVIL ROAD, PUNALOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, BINU 51 YEARS,
             S/O VISWAMBHARAN, VATTAKAITHAYIL HOUSE,
             SIVANKOVIL ROAD, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT

             BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

RESPONDENT/S:

      1      STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY,
             4TH FLOOR, KSRTC TERMINAL COMPLEX, THAMPANOOR,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

      2      STATE LEVEL EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE,
             4TH FLOOR, KSRTC TERMINAL COMPLEX, THAMPANOOR,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014,
             REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

      3      DIRECTOR OFMINING AND GEOLOGY,
             DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
             KESAVADASAPURAM,
             PATTOM PALCE P.O.,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004.


             BY SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, STANDING COUNSEL

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.5631 of 2021
                                                 2




                                  W.P.(C)No.5631 of 2021
                           -----------------------------------------------


                                        JUDGMENT

Petitioner is operating a quarry based on the quarrying lease

obtained under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. Petitioner

has also obtained Environmental Clearance for the said purpose. Ext.P2(a) is

the Environmental Clearance obtained by the petitioner. After obtaining

Environmental Clearance, the mining plan of the petitioner was modified by

the Geologist concerned. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Ext.P8

application for amending the Environmental Clearance obtained by them.

The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the

part of the first respondent in taking a decision on Ext.P8 application.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the

learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem

it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent to

take a decision on Ext.P8 application in accordance with law with notice to

the petitioner, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

rkj W.P.(C)No.5631 of 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MINING LEASE DEED DATED 6.10.2017

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF TH 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.9.2017 BY WHICH MINING LEASE WAS FORMALLY SANCTIONED TO THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P2 (a) TRUE COPY OF ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE ISSUED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY DATED 16.1.2017

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF APPROVED MINING PLAN APPROVED BY THE GEOLOGIST ON 20.3.2018

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MOVEMENT PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 9.11.2018

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2020 (1) KHC 17

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 10403/2020 DATED 27.5.2020

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6.1.2021

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 2.2.2021