M/S. J & S Granites Company vs Pramadom Grama Panchayat
2022 Latest Caselaw 8481 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                        PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
                WP(C) NO. 20898 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

         M/S. J & S GRANITES COMPANY
         AGED 66 YEARS
         MUPPRAMON, V-KOTTAYAM P.O.,
         PATHANAMTHITTA
         REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
         SRI. K. SADANANDAN.
         , PIN - 689565
         BY ADVS.
         ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
         S.SREEDEV
         RONY JOSE
         LEO LUKOSE
         SUZANNE KURIAN
         CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL


RESPONDENT/S:

    1    PRAMADOM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
         LAKKOOR, MALLASSERY P.O.,
         PATHANAMTHITTA-689 646.
         , PIN - 689646
    2    SECRETARY
         PRAMADOM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
         LAKKOOR, MALLASSERY P.O.,
         PATHANAMTHITTA
         , PIN - 689646
    3    ADDL.R3.AJI K.
         AGED 40 YEARS, PRESIDENT, THUDIYURILIPPARA
         DEVASWOM, S/O. KUNJU KUNJU.A.K., KANJIRAPPARA,
         VALLIKKODU KOTTAYAM, V-KOTTAYAM PO,
         PATHANAMTHITTA-689656.
    4    ADDL.R4.ROY THOMAS
         AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS JOSHUA, CHAIRMAN,
         GRAMA REKSHA SAMATHI, V-KOTTAYAM.P.O.,
         PATHANAMTHITTA-689656.
         (ADDL.R3 & R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 5-7-
 W.P(C) No.20898 of 2022         :2:

            2022 IN IA 1/2022 IN WP(C).
            BY ADVS.
            JACOB P.ALEX
            RESHMI JACOB
            JOSEPH P.ALEX
            MANU SANKAR P.
            AMAL AMIR ALI
            BOBY THOMAS


     THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   06.07.2022,   THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C) No.20898 of 2022               :3:




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of July, 2022

The petitioner, a granite Company, seeks to direct the

2nd respondent to consider Ext.P7 representation in the light

of Ext.P5 notification.

2. The petitioner states that the petitioner holds a

Letter of Intent issued by the Director of Mining and Geology

for conducting quarrying operations in various Survey

numbers in V Kottayam Village in Konni Taluk in

Pathanamthitta District. The period of Letter of Intent has

been extended until further orders.

3. The petitioner states that the petitioner has all

requisite permits and licences, and the Consent of the

Pollution Control Board. The petitioner also holds Explosives

Licence. The petitioner was granted Ext.P2 Environmental

Clearance (EC).

4. The validity of the Enviornmental Clearance was

originally for 5 years and it would be expiring on 09.08.2020.

According to the petitioner, as per extant rules, the validity of

EC of a mining project should be the project life as estimated

by the Appraisal Committee. The petitioner therefore

approached this Court filing W.P(C) No.12420 of 2020. This

Court held that limiting the validity of EC to five years, when

the project life for mining is for a longer period, is arbitrary

and not in accordance with the EIA Notification, 2006. This

Court therefore directed the Authorities to revalidate the EC

in accordance with the project life.

5. The petitioner states that in the meanwhile, the

petitioner was issued with Ext.P3 Trade Licence by the 2 nd

respondent-Secretary, Pramadom Grama Panchayat. Ext.P3

Trade Licence was issued on the basis of Ext.P2

Environmental Clearance. The 2nd respondent as per Ext.P4

cancelled the Trade Licence on the ground that the petitioner

does not possess a valid Environmental Clearance.

6. The petitioner states that subsequently the

Government of India amended the Rules by issuing Ext.P5

Notification dated 12.04.2022. In paragraph No.9 of the

Notification, it was made clear that Environmental Clearance

granted for a mining project has to be treated as valid for the

project life as laid down in the mining plan approved by the

competent authority.

7. The petitioner would submit that in view of Ext.P5

Notification, the EC granted to the petitioner is valid for the

project life laid down in the Mining Plan approved by the

Mining Authority. In view of Ext.P5 Notification and Ext.P6

certificate issued by the Geologist wherein the life of the

mine was determined as 20 years, the petitioner submitted

Ext.P7 representation dated 16.06.2020 to the 2 nd

respondent seeking to revoke Ext.P4 order. However, the 2 nd

respondent is refusing to consider and pass orders on the

representation. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner

is before this Court.

8. The Standing Counsel entered appearance on

behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and contested the writ petition.

The Standing Counsel denied all the material allegations

made by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is submitted on

behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that two other writ petitions are

pending before this Court relating to issuance of Trade

Licence.

9. The EC was issued originally to the petitioner for a

period of 5 years. Ext.P5 Notification would state that the

prior Environmental Clearance granted for Mining Projects

shall be valid for the project life as laid down in the Mining

Plan approved and renewed by the competent authority,

from time to time, subject to a maximum of thirty years,

whichever is earlier. The petitioner is relying on Ext.P6

certificate issued by the Geologist. Ext.P6 cannot be treated

as a document validly deciding the mining period. The issue

has to be decided by SIEAA, contended the Standing

Counsel.

10. The additional 3rd respondent impleaded in the writ

petition also opposed the writ petition vehemently. The

additional 3rd respondent submitted that there is a temple

existing hardly 15 metres away from the quarry and the

existence of this temple was suppressed by the petitioner

while obtaining all licences and approvals. The additional 3 rd

respondent has approached this Court aggrieved by the

permission granted to the petitioner in W.P(C) No.3559 of

2021. As the petitioner has suppressed material facts in

obtaining various licences, consents and clearances, this writ

petition is liable to be dismissed.

11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

12. The issue agitated in the writ petition is relating to

non-grant/non-renewal of trade licence. A Division Bench of

this Court has held in Nagaroor Grama Panchayat v. Salim

[2016 (3) KLT 82] that the decision making process by the

Panchayat authorities under the D&O Rules has to be

independently made and would not be made depending upon

anything which is not statutorily insisted or permitted to be

relied on in such proceedings. The provisions of Sections

232, 233 and 234 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as well as

the contents of the D&O Rules clearly show that the

provisions of the Act and the D&O Rules stand by

themselves and those provisions are not dependent on any

decision to be rendered on the basis of any other statute.

13. In view of the law thus laid down by this Court in

Nagaroor Grama Panchayat (supra), this Court is of the

view that respondents 1 and 2 are bound to consider Ext.P7

representation submitted by the petitioner and take a

decision in the matter of revocation of the order cancelling

the Trade Licence of the petitioner.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the

writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P4 and directing

the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P7 representation

submitted by the petitioner, in the light of the law laid down

by this Court in Nagaroor Grama Panchayat (supra), after

giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as

the additional 3rd respondent. A decision in this regard shall

be taken within a period of three weeks.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE smm/08.07.2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20898/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT DTD.

24.06.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY Exhibit P(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE DTD. 10.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE SEIAA.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TRADE LICENSE DATED 04.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4        TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
                  16.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
                  RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5        TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED

12.04.2022 BEARING NUMBER S.O. 1807(E) ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE, UNION OF INDIA.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 05.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST, PATHANAMTHITTA.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.06.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.06.2022 IN WP(C) NO. 19137/2022 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.