Divya Metal Industries vs The State Environmental Impact ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8271 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1945
                     WP(C) NO. 22549 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          DIVYA METAL INDUSTRIES
          A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. CHELAKODE P.O.,
          PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 587
          REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
          V.GOVINDANKUTTY.

          BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN


RESPONDENTS:

   1     THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY,
         KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,
         DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE,
         PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 024.

   2     STATE LEVEL EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (SEAC)
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
         KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR,
         THAMBANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

        BY ADV.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.22549 of 2022
                                   2




                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of August, 2023

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 Environmental

Clearance issued to the petitioner, wherein the State

Environmental Impact Assessment Authority has imposed a

condition to maintain 100 metre distance from the reserve forest

boundary, for quarrying activities. The petitioner states that the

said distance restriction imposed is arbitrary and illegal.

2. The petitioner points out that as per Ext.P11 Minutes of

the 87th Meeting, the SEIAA had decided to impose a minimum

distance of 50 metres from the forest boundary to a quarry. There

is no specific reason indicated in Ext.P2 to depart from 50 metres

distance and impose restriction of double that distance. W.P.(C) No.22549 of 2022

3. Standing Counsel entered appearance and resisted the

writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and the

Rules made thereunder give powers and functions to the State

Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. The Environmental

Protection Act and EIA Notification empower the SEIAA to look

into the possible impact that an activity causes to environment and

to take or impose measures for regulating such impact. The

fixation of the buffer zone from the boundary of the nearby forest

area would depend upon the facts and circumstances prevailing in

each case.

4. Standing Counsel further argued that it was on the

basis of the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee

that 100 metre distance was prescribed in respect of the

petitioner's proposed project. A joint inspection was conducted

along with the Divisional Forest Officer and it was found that the W.P.(C) No.22549 of 2022

petitioner is not even maintaining 50 metre distance from the

boundary of the nearest forest. During the joint inspection, it was

found that the petitioner is maintaining only 45.3 metres distance

from the boundary of the nearest forest. In addition, SEIAA has

received complaints from Chelakkara Grama Panchayat with

regard to the functioning of the quarry of the petitioner.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Standing Counsel representing the SEIAA.

6. It is not doubtful that the State Environmental Impact

Assessment Authority has the powers to regulate the

Environmental Clearances in respect of quarrying units and other

industries. In that capacity, the State Environmental Impact

Assessment Authority may impose conditions for granting

Environmental Clearance.

7. However, in this case, it is to be noted that as per

Ext.P11, the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, W.P.(C) No.22549 of 2022

in its 87th meeting, had taken a decision to impose a minimum

distance of 50 metres from the forest boundary to any quarry.

Exts.P2 or P8 do not indicate any reason based on which the

State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority has decided to

impose 100 metres as minimum distance, for the petitioner's

quarry. In view of the afore facts, I am of the view that SEIAA has

to reconsider the condition as to 100 metres distance imposed in

Ext.P2. While considering the said aspect, the SEIAA will have to

look into the law relating to protected forest also.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the

respondents to reconsider the condition as to 100 metres imposed

on the quarry of the petitioner and take appropriate decision

thereon, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams W.P.(C) No.22549 of 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22549/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17-12-2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.10358 OF 2016.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE NO.71/2017 BEARING NO. 1062/SEIAA/ECI/1639/16 DATED 16-10-2017.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF ONE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 28-03-2018. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING CONDUCTED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE HELD ON 28- 04-2017.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 20-06-2018.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04- 01-2021.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01- 03-2021.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.1062/SEIAA/1639/2016 DATED 29-03-2021. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-06-2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.29529 OF 2021 Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 14-01-2019