Kerala High Court
Peter M Puravath vs State Level Environment Impact ... on 5 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 12328 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
PETER M PURAVATH
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. PURAVATH, MADATHUKUDIYIL HOUSE, KINGINIMATTOM P.O,
KOLENCHERY, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. B.P ASSOCIATES,
VALATHUKAD ESTATE, DESAMANGALAM P.O, VADAKKANCHERRY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA 679 532
BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY
(SEIAA KERALA)
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, 4TH FLOOR, KSRTC
BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
2 STATE LEVEL EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PALLIMUKKU, KANNAMMOOLA
ROAD, OVERBRIDGE, VELAKUDI, TRIVANDRUM 695 024
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 695 001
4 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES (A)
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 695 001
5 THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT CLIMATE AND FOREST CHANGE,
JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR.
SMT.VINITHA.B-SR.G.P
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 12328 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writs, orders or
directions calling for the records leading to Exhibit P2 and quash the
same to the extent it limited the period of EC to 5 years.
(ii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the period of
Environment Clearance for the life of the project as estimated and
fixed in Exhibit P1, for 21 years and limiting the period to five years
by the 1st respondent in Exhibit P2 is against the provisions of the EIA
notification 2006."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner is the Managing Partner and a grantee of quarrying
lease for an extent of 8.8485 hectares of land for a period of 21
years commencing from 24.05.2014 (to be renewed every five
years). It is submitted that the Environmental Clearance has also
been granted to the petitioner which is valid for a period of 5 years
from 10.01.2020. It is submitted that the validity of the
Environmental Clearance is not liable to be restricted to a period
WP(C) NO. 12328 OF 2022
lesser than the project life/ mine life estimated by the appraisal
committee. The petitioner has, therefore, sought directions for re-
validation of Ext.P2 Environmental Clearance for the full duration
of the project life of the quarry.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as
per paragraph 9(i) of the EIA Notification 2006, an Environmental
Clearance has to be valid for the period of the project life/life of
the mine as estimated by the respondents. The life of the mine as
estimated by the respondents is 21 years. Therefore, Ext.P2
Environmental Clearance is unsustainable to the extent it provides
a shorter period of duration. The learned counsel for the petitioner
pointed out that this Court has considered the legality of limiting
the period of Environmental Clearance disregarding the life of
mining project and has held that limiting the period of
Environmental Clearance for five years would be against the terms
and spirit of 2006 Notification.
5. It is evident from Ext.P1 proceedings that the 1 st respondent
has estimated the project life of the mine of the petitioner as about
21 years. However, the validity of Environmental Clearance
WP(C) NO. 12328 OF 2022
granted to the petitioner on 10.01.2020, was limited to 5 years.
This Court considered the legality of issuing Environmental
Clearance for a shorter duration and held in the judgment in T.
Mathew Abraham v. State Level Environment Impact Assessment
Authority [2020 (6) KLT 302] that the Scheme of 2006 Notification
as far as mining projects are concerned, is that if it is found that
Environmental Clearance is to be granted for a mining project, the
same shall be granted for the life of the project as estimated by the
Expert Appraisal Committees concerned and that decision of
SEIAA to limit the validity of the ECs to be granted for mining
projects to 5 years, is against the terms and spirit of the 2006
Notification.
6. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of
following the judgment in T. Mathew Abraham v. State
Environment Impact Assessment Authority (supra). It is declared
that Ext.P2 Environmental Clearance is invalid to the limited
extent, it limits the validity of Environmental Clearance for five
years. The regulatory bodies concerned are directed to call for
additional recommendations from the Appraisal Committee after
WP(C) NO. 12328 OF 2022
estimating the life of the project of the petitioners in respect of
Ext.P2 and revalidate the Environmental Clearance granted to the
petitioner. It will be open to the Appraisal Committee to call for
additional information required and in that event, it will be
obligatory for the petitioner to furnish additional information
called for. The recommendations of the Appraisal Committee
would not be binding on the regulatory body and if the regulatory
body disagrees with the recommendations made by the Appraisal
Committee as regards the project life of the petitioner's project,
the regulatory body would be free to follow the procedure
mentioned in Clause 8 of 2006 Notification in the matter of
arriving at the conclusion as to the life of the project of the
petitioner, for the purpose of complying with the directions
contained in this judgment.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for SEIAA
that the SEIAA has only been reconstituted recently. In the above
view of the matter, the directions shall be complied within a
period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment after verifying whether there is surplus mineral left to
WP(C) NO. 12328 OF 2022
be excavated.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
SVP
WP(C) NO. 12328 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12328/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE STATE
ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY
KERALA VIDE NO 153/SEIAA/KL 3073/2013 DATED
24-05-2014
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO 153/SEIAA/KL
3073/2013 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 10-01-2020
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2020
(6) KLT 302
