Kerala High Court
Dennis Sebastian vs State Environmental Impact Assessment ... on 19 April, 2024
WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 30737 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 DENNIS SEBASTIAN AGED 38 YEARS S/O. DEVASSIA, RESIDING
AT KUTTIYANKAL HOUSE, VALAVOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN 686635.
2 'NELLIKKUNNU JALANIDHI GUNABHOKTHRU SANGAM' REG. NO.
KTMTC682/2014, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT TOMY JOSEPH, AGED
54 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, AMBATTU HOUSE, CHAKKAMPUZHA
P.O, 686574 KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-
3 'ALUMKAL JALANIDHI GUNABHOKTHRU
SANGAM' REG. NO. KTMTC766/2014, REP. 'BY ITS
PRESIDENT APPACHAN JOSEPH, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH,
VELLAMKUNNEL HOUSE, VALVOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
686635.
4 NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI T.N, AGED 75 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN
NAMBOOTHIRI, THAMARASSERY ILLAM, VALAVOOR, P.O,
KOTTAYAM PIN 686635.
5 MANUEL JOSEPH, AGED 69 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH,
PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, VALAVOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM PIN
686635
6 P.A BABY, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. AUGUSTY, PONNATH HOUSE
VALAVOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM PIN 686635
7 JOHNY JOSEPH, AGED 67 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH,
THEKKALAKKATTIL HOUSE, VALAVOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM PIN
686635
8 JOSE MANUEL, AGED 52 YEARS S/O. MANUEL, MUNDAMAKKIYIL
HOUSE, VALAVOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM PIN 686635.
BY ADV GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY REP.
BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, KSRTC SHOPPING COMPLEX,
THAMPANOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695005
2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THE OFFICE OF
MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
3 THE GEOLOGIST, THE OFFICE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 002.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THE VILLAGE OFFICE, VALLICHIRA
WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 :2:
P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 574.
5 THE KAROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, KAROOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686
575.
6 MOHAMMED NAHA SALIM, THUNDIL PUTHENVEEDU,
BHARATHEEYAPURAM P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM-691 312.
7 ADDL.R7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM, PIN- 686009 IMPLEADED AS
ADDL. R7 AS PER ORDER DATED 16.01.2023 IN I.A. 1/2023
OF WP(C) 30737/2022.
BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA SUNIL CYRIAC
JOBI JOSE KONDODY
BY SPL.GP - SUJITH MATHEW JOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 :3:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 4655 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
DENNIS SEBASTIAN AGED 38 YEARS S/O. DEVASSIA,
KUTTIYANKAL HOUSE, VALAVOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN ., PIN - 686635
BY ADV GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION,
KOTTAYAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686002
2 THE KAROOR GRAMAPANCHAYATH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
KAROOR P.O KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686575
3 MOHAMMED NANA SALIM THUNDILPUTHENVEEDU HOUSE,
BHARATHEEYAPURAM P.O, ANCHAL, KOLLAM, PIN - 691312
BY ADVS. SUNIL CYRIAC JOBI JOSE KONDODY
BY SPL.GP - SUJITH MATHEW JOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024 :4:
'CR'
VIJU ABRAHAM , J.
===========================
WP(C) Nos. 30737 of 2022 & 4655 of 2024
============================
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P1, P3 and P5, i.e.,
Letter of Intent, Environmental Clearance and Quarrying Permit
respectively, issued in favour of the 6th respondent.
2. Petitioners submit that the issuance of Ext.P1 letter of intent is
arbitrary and illegal in as much as going by Rule 8 of the Kerala Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as KMMC Rules,
2015) it is mandatory on the part of the 3 rd respondent to conduct a site
inspection before issuing a letter of intent. Since no inspection was
conducted, the objectionable sites from the site of quarry were not
noticed before issuing Ext.P1. Petitioners would submit that in Ext P3
there is a mention that the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee
(SEAC) has also reported that there is a house in the locality within 165
metres from the boundary of the quarry and the project proponent shall
produce the certificate from the Village Officer to the effect that there are
no residential building within 200 metres from the boundary of the
quarry. Petitioners submit that Ext.P4 certificate issued by the Village
Officer is against the real factual situation. Later on Ext.P5 quarrying
permit was also issued in respect of the quarry run by the 6 th respondent.
It is aggrieved by the issuance of Exts.P1, P3 and P5 that the petitioners
have approached this Court.
3. One of the specific contention raised by the petitioners is that
there are public water reservoirs near the quarry, but the existence of
these water tanks was not noticed while issuing Exts.P1, P3 and P5.
Petitioners relying on Section 40(2) of the Kerala Irrigation and
Conservation of Water Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act,
2003') and the judgment dated 01.11.2017 in WP(C) No.23565 of 2017
submit that a No Objection Certificate from the Irrigation Department is
necessary before issuing an EC or a quarrying permit. Petitioners also rely
on the judgment of this Court in Sobin P.K. v. District Geologist,
Ernakulam and Others [2020 (1) KHC 1 (DB)] in support of their
contention.
4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 6 th
respondent, wherein it is contended that the environmental clearance
and the permits were issued strictly in accordance with law and on
finding that there are no objectionable structures near the site of
quarrying. As regards the water reservoirs mentioned in the writ petition,
the 6th respondent would contend that those are not structures
constructed by the Irrigation Department and not within one kilometre
radius of the quarry, and therefore no permission from the Irrigation
Department is necessary and there is no violation of Section 40(2) of the
Act, 2003. The 6th respondent would further contend that since the water
tank is not constructed either by the Kerala Water Authority or by the
Irrigation Department, no permission under Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003
is required. It is further contended that as regards the environmental
clearance granted, the petitioner has an alternative remedy under
Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 to approach the
National Green Tribunal, challenging the same.
5. The above writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 1 st
respondent to consider Ext.P2 and to take necessary action as provided
under Kerala Irrigation and Conservation of Water Act, 2003 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Act, 2003'). The said writ petition is filed by the 1 st
petitioner in WP(C) No. 30737 of 2022 against the quarry run by the 3 rd
respondent, who is the 6th respondent in WP(C) No.30737 of 2022, mainly
contending that there is violation of Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003. The
specific case of the petitioner is that there are three public water tanks
near the quarrying site and in case blasting operations are undertaken
there is a chance for the water tanks to be destroyed and therefore only
after obtaining an NOC as mandated as per Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003
that necessary permissions and licenses ought to have been issued by
the authorities. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has
approached the 1st respondent by filing Ext.P2 complaint and the
petitioner seeks for an expeditious disposal of the same so that
appropriate action could be taken by the 1st respondent.
6. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 3 rd
respondent, wherein it is submitted that the trade license obtained was
declined by the Panchayat and only after the intervention of this Court as
evident from Ext.R3(a) to R3(d) that the same was issued. It is further
contended that Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003 does not contemplate an
NOC from the Irrigation Department in respect of drinking water supply
tanks maintained by other agencies including the Panchayat and the
Government. Further, Rule 10(f) and Rule 40(i) of the Kerala Minor
Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as KMMC Rules
2015) only impose a restriction that quarrying using explosives cannot be
permitted within 50 metres of any reservoir, tanks, canals, rivers,
bridges, public works etc. and that the Mines and Minerals (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1957 or the KMMC Rules 2015 does not mandate
obtaining an NOC from the Irrigation Department before mining activities
are carried out using explosives within a radius of one kilometre of any
structures or construction owned, controlled or maintained by the
Government, local authority or any other authority. The 3rd respondent
also relies on Ext.R3(f) communication issued by the Irrigation
Department wherein it is reported that since the water tanks are under
the ownership and custody of Karoor Grama Panchayat, 2 nd respondent
herein, it is for them to give an NOC in this regard and the Office of the
Executive Engineer of the Minor Irrigation Division has absolutely no
authority to issue NOC in the referred subject matter and are not
empowered to do so by any Government order in this regard and sought
for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. I have heard the rival contentions of both sides.
8. Essentially the issue in these writ petitions is regarding the
grant of permission for conducting a quarry overlooking the presence of
three public water reservoirs near the quarry; water tanks of 'Nellikunnu'
Water Supply Scheme, 'Alunkal' Water Supply Scheme under the local
authority and water tank of Indian Institute of Information Technology.
The counter affidavit of the 7th respondent in WP(C) No. 30737 of 2022
admits that the 'Nellikunnu' water tank is around 300 metres aerially
away on the northern side from the quarrying location, the 'Alunkal'
water tank is around 300 metres aerially away on the north-western side
from the quarrying location and the IIIT water tank is around 400 metres
aerially away on the south-eastern side from the quarrying location. It is
also stated by the 7th respondent in the counter affidavit that the first two
water tanks are in the ownership of 2 nd respondent in WPC No. 4655 of
2024 and other by the Indian Institute of Information Technology, an
institute of national importance under an Act of Parliament. It is
further stated that as per Section 40(2), the irrigation officer has power
over the water tanks referred to in the writ petition and that for
issuance of an NOC, the consent of the owner of the water tank and
the custodian of the water tank should be obtained. The contention of
the 6th respondent in WP(C) No. 30737 of 2022 is that the environmental
clearance and various permits were granted on finding that there are no
objectionable structures from the site of quarrying. Ext P1 produced in
WP(C) No. 30737 of 2022 is the letter of intent granted by the 3 rd
respondent and it is contended by the 6 th respondent that Ext P1
quarrying permit was issued only after he has obtained all the
consent/licence/clearance mentioned in Ext P1. Rule 8 of the KMMC Rules
2015 deals with grant of letter of intent to an applicant for a quarrying
permit which reads as follows:-
"8. Letter of intent to an applicant for a quarrying permit.-
On receipt of an application for a quarrying permit with all requisite
contents and particulars thereof prescribed in these rules but
without having the statutory licences required to be obtained from
other Departments concerned, the applicant shall be issued a letter
of intent by the competent authority after making site visits and
other enquiries as the authority deems fit. Quarrying permit shall
be granted and royalty collected only after obtaining all other
statutory licences/clearances/No Objection Certificates etc. from
other statutory authorities concerned. The letter of intent so issued
shall be sufficient for statutory authorities concerned for issuing
their licenses/permissions/No Objection Certificates etc."
(underlines supplied)
Rule 9 of KMMC Rules, 2015 deals with the disposal of application for
grant of quarrying permit which reads as follows:-
"9. Disposal of application for the grant of quarrying
permit.-(1) On receipt of the application for grant of quarrying
permit for undertaking quarrying operations, the competent
authority shall make site inspection and take decision regarding the
precise area to be granted for the said purpose and intimate the
applicant to submit approved mining plan and Environmental
Clearance for the precise area:
Provided that, approved mining plan and environmental clearance
shall not be insisted, for the issuance and renewal of permits in the
case of Laterite Building Stone.
(2) On receipt of an approved mining plan and Environmental
Clearance for the precise area and on production of all other
statutory licenses/clearances/No Objection Certificate etc. from
other statutory authorites concerned, the competent authority shall
issue a quarrying permit to the applicant within thirty days in Form
N for ordinary earth and in Form M for all other minor minerals."
(underlines supplied)
9. The petitioners contend that there are three public water
reservoirs near the quarry, two run by the local authority i.e. the 2 nd
respondent in WP(C) No.4655 of 2024 and another is the water tank
maintained by Indian Institute of Information Technology, Kottayam, and
that going by Section 40 (2) of the Act, 2003, NOC from the competent
authority in the Irrigation Department is required before issuing the
environmental clearance and quarrying permit. But on the other hand, it
is the contention of the 6th respondent that the quarrying permit has been
granted after obtaining all the necessary statutory clearances as
demanded in Ext.P1 letter of intent, and public water reservoirs are not
constructed by the Kerala Water Authority or the Irrigation Department
and therefore he is not obliged to obtain permission under Section 40(2)
of the Act, 2003.
10. Ext.P1 is the letter of intent issued by the Geologist under Rule
8 of the Rules, 2015. In Ext.P1 letter of intent the petitioner was directed
to produce five documents which does not contain a 'No Objection
Certificate' as provided under Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003. Petitioners
submit that he has produced whatever documents that have been
requested in Ext.P1, and thereafter the environmental clearance and the
quarrying permit were granted in his favour. Rule 8 of the KMMC Rules,
2015 only mandates that a letter of intent will be issued before the grant
of statutory licenses required to be obtained from other departments
concerned which shall be sufficient for statutory authorities concerned for
issuing the license/permission/No Objection Certificate. The question to
be considered is as to whether any written permission of the Irrigation
Officer is required in the present case as mandated under Section 40(2)
of the Act, 2003 before issuing environmental clearance and quarrying
permit. Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003 reads as follows:-
"40(2) - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
the time being in force, no person shall, without the written
permission of the Irrigation Officer, conduct mining or quarrying
operation using explosives within a radius of one kilometre 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. "
(underlines supplied)
Going by Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003, written permission of the
Irrigation Officer is required to conduct quarrying operation using
explosives within a radius of one kilometre of any structure or
construction controlled or owned, maintained by the Government, Local
Authority or any other authority. Admittedly, two of the water tanks in
question are owned and maintained by the local authority, and one by
the Indian Institute of Information Technology. So the water tanks owned
and maintained by both these authorities, one a local authority and
another an authority of the Government are structures coming under the
purview of Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003 which requires written
permission from the Irrigation Officer before starting mining or quarrying
operation using explosives.
11. The contention of the 6 th respondent in WPC No. 30737 of 2022
is that since the water tank was not constructed either by the Kerala
Water Authority or by the Irrigation Department, no permission under
Section 40(2) of the Act is required. The 6 th respondent relies on Ext R3 (f)
communication produced in WPC No. 4655 of 2024 to contend that the
irrigation department has no authority to issue an NOC in a case where
the structures are owned by a local authority. The petitioner relies on the
Government Order G.O.(P) No.1/2016/WRD dated 14.01.2016, wherein
the Government in exercise of the power conferred by clause 2 of Act,
2003 appointed the Executive Engineers of the Irrigation Department in
the respective jurisdiction as Irrigation Officer to perform all or any of the
functions under the Act, 2003. The Government Order reads as follows:
"GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Water Resources (MI) Department
NOTIFICATION
G.O.(P) No.1/2016/WRD.
Dated, Thiruvananthapuram. 14th January 2016/29th Dhanu, 1191,
S.R.O. No.67/2016 - In exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(u) of section 2 of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act,
2003 (31 of 2003), the Government of Kerala hereby appoint the
Executive Engineers of the Irrigation Department in their respective
jurisdictions as the Irrigation Officer to perform all or any of the
functions under the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act,
2003.
By order of the Governor,
V.J.Kurian,
Additional Chief Secretary to Government."
So as per Section 40(2) of the Act 2003 coupled with the Government
Order referred to above dated 14.01.2016 the Executive Engineer of the
Irrigation Department in the respective jurisdiction who has been
appointed as Irrigation Officer is bound to look into whether the water
tanks are situated within the objectionable distance as provided in
Section 40(2) of the Act 2003. Therefore, I repel the contention of the
learned counsel for the 6th respondent that NOC is not required as
provided in Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003 in respect of the water tanks
which are maintained by the local authority and the Indian Institute of
Information Technology as Section 40(2) takes in structure or
construction owned and controlled by the Government, local authority or
any other authority.
12. Yet another aspect to be noted is that these issues have
cropped in only for the reason that the letter of intent issued as Ext.P1
only required the 6th respondent to obtain certain consents/permission
which the 6th respondent has duly obtained and that it did not direct the
6th respondent to obtain a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Irrigation
Department as provided in Section 40 (2) of the Act, 2003. Though the
letter of intent is issued as per Rule 8 of the KMMC Rules, 2015, the said
Rule does not limit or does not prescribe about the licenses or
permissions to be obtained for considering the request for issuance of a
quarrying permit. Rule 8 only says that the letter of intent shall be
sufficient for statutory authorities concerned for issuing the
license/permission/No Objection Certificate etc., and the said Rule further
mandates that quarrying permit will be granted only after obtaining all
statutory licenses/clearances/No Objection Certificate etc. from other
statutory authorities concerned. The problem of issuing a letter of intent
in the nature of Ext.P1 which specifies the licences/consents to be
obtained, is that the project proponent can take shelter under Ext.P1 and
contend that he was obliged to produce only those documents mentioned
in Ext.P1 and No Objection Certificate from the Irrigation Department is
not necessary at all, since he was not asked to obtain the same as per
the letter of intent. Therefore, the Geologist while issuing a letter of
intent should see that it is issued strictly in accordance with Rule 8 of
KMMC Rules 2015, after making site visits and other enquiries as the
authority deem fit and informing the project proponent that a quarrying
permit will be issued only after obtaining all other statutory
licences/clearances/no objection certificates etc from other statutory
authorities concerned and shall not limit the same as is done in Ext P1 or
in the alternative the letter of intent should also mandate that the project
proponents shall also obtain a 'No Objection Certificate' from the
Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department in the respective
jurisdiction who has been appointed as an Irrigation Officer to perform all
the duties and functions under the Act, 2003 as provided under Section
40 (2) of the Act 2003 so that a situation like this will not arise in future.
13. Now that the environmental clearance as well as quarrying
permit has been granted on the basis of the document produced by the
6th respondent in WP(C) No.30737 of 2022, this court is of the view that a
direction could be issued to the 1st respondent in WP(C) No.4655 of 2024
to consider the complaint raised by the petitioners regarding the
presence of water tank within the objectionable distance of the quarrying
site in violation of Section 40(2) of the Act, 2003 for which petitioner in
WPC No. 4655 of 2024 has preferred Ext.P2 request. The petitioner relies
on the judgment in Sobin P.K. v. District Geologist, Ernakulam and
Others [2020 (1) KHC 1 (DB)], wherein this Court held in paragraphs
16 and 18 as follows;
"16. Admittedly, the water tank is having a capacity of 2.50 lakhs
litres and the same is said to be constructed on the basis of
Neriyamangalam drinking water project. Though, referring to the
preamble of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act,
learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that the
provision cannot be applicable to grant permits, we are not in
agreement with the said contention for the reason that Section
40(2) of the said Act starts with non obstante clause and it reads
thus:
"40. Mining or quarrying near certain works etc.- xx xxx xxxxx
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
the time being in force, no person shall, without the written
permission of the Irrigation Officer, conduct mining or
quarrying operation using explosives within a radius of one
kilometre 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."
18. Reading of 40(2) of the Kerala Irrigation and Water
Conservation Act, 2003, makes it clear that mining or quarrying
operation using explosives within a radius of one kilometre 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, without any prior written
permission, is not permissible. In case on hand, water tank is
maintained by Kerala Water Authority and the same would
certainly fall under the expression in Section 40(2) of the Act to
include Kerala Water Authority also. "
14. The petitioner also relies on the judgment in WP(C) No.23565
of 2017, wherein paragraphs 2 and 6 reads as follows;
"2. The 1st respondent admittedly has not obtained any
permission under the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act
which under Section 40(2) provides as under:-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, no person shall, without the written
permission of the Irrigation Officer, conduct mining or
quarrying operation using explosives within a radius of one
kilometre 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."
6. It is also pertinent that the 1 st respondent had applied as
per Ext.P5 without specifically declaring the canal and water tank
existing within the prohibited area as per the Conservation Act. In
such circumstance, the recommendation of the DEAC was without
looking at the relevant facts and considering the impact of the
conduct of the quarry within the prohibited distance as provided
under the Conservation Act. In such circumstance, despite there
being no challenge to the EC as per Ext.P3, the declaration sought
for would require this Court to set aside Ext.P3. Ext.P3 hence
would stand set aside. The 1st respondent would be entitled to
approach the Competent Officer under the Conservation Act for a
permission under Section 40(2) and then approach the District
Environment Impact Assessment Authority with a proper
application specifically showing the water bodies or structures for
irrigation or drinking water supply; existing within the prohibited
distance and the consent if obtained under the Conservation Act."
15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the above writ
petition is disposed of as follows:-
The 1st respondent in WP(C) No.4655 of 2024 (Executive Engineer, Minor
Irrigation Division, Kottayam) shall take up Ext.P2 complaint preferred by
the petitioner and conduct necessary enquiry regarding the objectionable
sites from the quarry run by the 3 rd respondent as provided under Section
40(2) of the Act, 2003 after conducting a site inspection and
measurement with notice to the petitioners and 2nd and 3rd respondents in
WP(C) No.4655 of 2024, and take a final decision in the matter within an
outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. Report in this regard shall be submitted by the 1 st respondent
in WP(C) No.4655 of 2024 before the Geologist concerned and also serve
a copy of the same to the petitioners as well as respondents 2 and 3 in
WP(C) No.4655 of 2024 as well as the State Enviornmental Impact
Assessment Authority, the 1st respondent in WP(C) No.30737 of 2022.
The Geologist and SEIAA shall take appropriate steps in this regard based
on the report to be submitted by the 1 st respondent in WP(C) No.4655 of
2024 (additional 7th respondent in WP(C) No.30737 of 2022) regarding the
continuation of the quarrying permit as well as the environmental
clearance granted, within a further period of two months thereafter after
affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, 2 nd and the 3rd
respondent in WP(C) No.4655 of 2024.
16. With the above-said directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the
Director of Mining and Geology, the 2 nd respondent in WP(C) No. 30737 of
2022, for information and due compliance of the directions.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sbk/-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30737/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT 03.10.2019
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ASSET
REGISTER OF THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE RECEIVED
BY THE IST PETITIONER IN WP(C) 25554/2022
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 06.09.2021
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT DATED 10.06.2022
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE PHOTOGRAPH
Exhibit P7 TRUE PHOTOGRAPH
Exhibit P8 TRUE PHOTOGRAPH
Exhibit P9 TRUE PHOTOGRAPH
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit A RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE 113TH
R6(a) MEETING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit True copy of the site inspection report along with
R7(a) the site plan
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4655/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MINING PERMIT BEARING NO:
3/GBS/QP/2022-23/541/DOY/ML/2018 DATED 10.06.2022
ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST KOTTAYAM IN FAVOUR OF 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 31.01.2024
ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit A true copy of the common judgment passed by the
R3(a) learned Division bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.A
No. 1813/2022 and WA No. 1820/2022 dated 06.03.2023
Exhibit A true copy of the order dated 04.04.2023 passed by
R3(b) this Hon'ble Court in Con.Case (C) No. 699/2023
Exhibit A true copy of the order dated 10.04.2023 passed
R3(c) by the learned Division Bench in Con.Case (Civil)
Exhibit A true copy of the order dated 13.04.2023 passed
R3(d) by the learned Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court
in Cont.Case (C) No. 699 of 2023
Exhibit A true copy of the report dated 08.02.2024
R3(e) submitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer
Minor Irrigation Department, Kottayam, before the
Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division,
Kottayam
Exhibit A true copy of the report dated 08.02.2024
R3(f) submitted by the Executive Engineer, Minor
Irrigation Division, Kottayam-1, before the
Geologist, Kottayam
