[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
M/S Al-Jouf Blue Metal vs Shajimon C on 19 December, 2025
WA NO. 2743/2025 1
2025:KER:98157
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WA NO. 2743 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.23894/2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/9TH RESPONDENT:
M/S AL-JOUF BLUE METAL,
CHEROOR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER SRI ANIYAN MATHEW, PIN - 680008
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
SMT.ARCHANA K.S.
SRI.NOEL EALIAS
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 8:
1 SHAJIMON C.,
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT CHOLAKKAL HOUSE,
MALAMMAL KAVU P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679554
2 VIPIN T.P.,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. VIJAYAN, THOTTAMPULATH, MALAMMAL KAVU P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679554
3 SAJID C,
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. MAMMY, RESIDING AT CHOLAKKAL, MALAMMAL KAVU
P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679554
4 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
WA NO. 2743/2025 2
2025:KER:98157
ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, INDIRA
PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, JORBAGH ROAD,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003
5 THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE,
INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, JORBAGH ROAD,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003
6 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
INDUSTRIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
7 STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, 4TH FLOOR,
KSRTC TERMINAL COMPLEX, THAMPANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
8 DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
9 THE GEOLOGIST,
DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY,
PALAKKAD TOWN BUS STAND COMPLEX,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678014
10 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DISTRICT
OFFICE,
TC 12/96(4,5) PLAMOODU, PATTOM P.O, TRIVANDRUM.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 695004
11 ANAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
ANAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, KUMBIDI P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN - 679553
BY ADVS. SRI.V.HARISH, R1 TO R3
SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN, R4 & R5
SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, R7
SRI.V.TEKCHAND, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.12.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 2743/2025 3
2025:KER:98157
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of December, 2025
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 13.10.2025 of the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.23894 of 2025. Appellant was the 9 th
respondent in the said W.P.(C).
2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the petitioners inter alia challenging the
constitutional validity of clause (iv) and proviso to sub-para 1 of para 9 of
Ext.P8 notification and Ext.P9 office memorandum. The primary contention
put forth was that mere remittance of the royalty or penalty cannot exonerate
a project proponent from the rigours of having violated the mining plan and
that compounding an offence will not wipe off the impact of violation of the
mining plan. An ancillary prayer to cancel Ext.P20 Environmental Clearance
granted to the appellant to operate the quarry was also sought insofar as
earlier the appellant had been subjected to compounding and imposition of
penalty. An interim prayer inter alia seeking a direction to the official
respondents to ensure that the appellant does not carry out any mining based
on Ext.P20 Environment Clearance had also been sought in the W.P.(C).
2025:KER:98157
3. The learned Single Judge admitted the W.P.(C) and proceeded to
consider the interim prayer. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge
rendered the impugned interim order, the operative portion whereof which
reads as follows :
"18. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to the 9th respondent to
stop all further quarrying activities forthwith, until the above exercise in terms
of Rule 68(2) and Rule 50 is done by the Government or the competent
authority, as the case may be. In view of the fact that the quarrying operations
are directed to be stalled, there will be a direction to the concerned among
respondents 3, 5 and 6 to take an appropriate call as directed above. For the
sake of convenience, this Court bifurcates the consideration under Rule 68(2) to
be done by the 6th respondent within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. For the purpose of Rule 50, this Court
directs the 3rd respondent or the 5th respondent, as the case may be, to take a
call within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. It is clarified that once consideration of Rule 68(2) is in favour of the
9th respondent, the quarrying operations can be resumed; and the same need not
wait until consideration in terms of Rule 50 is completed, subject to the 9th
respondent possessing all requisite licenses, permits, E.Cs etc as per law. If the
consideration based on Rule 50 culminates in an Order to cancel the lease, the
activities will have to be stopped. Needless to say that before taking a call by the
respective authorities, the petitioners, as also, the 9th respondent be afforded
with an opportunity of being heard. The 9th respondent will produce a copy of
this judgment before the competent authorities for compliance. Upon
consideration based on Rule 68(2) and Rule 50, necessary Orders shall be
passed by the competent authorities within the time frame stipulated above.
19. Let the writ petition be kept pending, in view of the other reliefs sought
for in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the 9th respondent would submit
that certain granites which have already been extracted is lying in the property,
and that the movement permits have been issued till 30.09.2025. The same
may be permitted to be removed, is the request made by the learned counsel for
the 9th respondent. This Court directs the Geologist to conduct an inspection to
the quarry of the 9th respondent to ascertain the extent of granite stone, which
has already been extracted and liable to be removed from the quarry. The same
shall be done by the Geologist and movement passes will be issued accordingly.
20. In view of the fact that the movement permits expired on 30.09.2025,
the 6th respondent/ Geologist is directed to issue fresh movement permits only
for transportation of granite already extracted."
2025:KER:98157
4. Aggrieved by the said interim order to the extent the interim order
directed a closure of quarrying activities by the appellant based on Ext.P20
Environment Clearance, till the exercise in terms of Rule 68(2) and Rule 50 is
carried out, this Writ Appeal has been filed.
5. Heard Sri.Kurian George Kannanthanam, Senior Advocate,
instructed by Sri.Babu Jospeh Kuruvathazha, Advocate for the appellant,
Sri.V.Harish, Advocate, for the respondents 1 to 3, Sri.K.S.Bharathan,
Advocate, for Respondents 4 & 5 and Sri.Tekchand, Senior Government
Pleader for Respondents 6 to 9.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the
impugned interim order restraining the quarrying had not taken into
consideration the effect of Ext.P22 judgment dated 27.09.2024 of this Court
in W.P.(C) No.3722 of 2024 in which the 1st respondent herein was the
petitioner.
7. It is submitted that the very same issue had been raised in the said
W.P.(C) and this Court while disposing of the same vide Ext.P22 judgment
had directed the 9th respondent, Geologist, to ensure that the appellant
operates the quarry in accordance with the conditions laid down and as per
the mandates of the license and permits issued.
2025:KER:98157
8. According to the learned Senior Counsel, Ext.P22 judgment
operated as res judicata, and the learned Single Judge while issuing the
impugned interim order, had overlooked the said specific direction to the
Geologist in Ext.P22. The interim order to stop the quarrying operation
while directing the official respondents to take steps as per Rule 68(2) and
Rule 50 to be carried out, could not have been issued in the light of the said
direction to the Geologist in Ext.P22 judgment.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 objects to
the prayer to operate the quarry during the interregnum, pointing out that the
essential object of carrying out the steps as per Rule 68(2) and Rule 50 is to
ascertain the need for restoration/reparation and permitting the operation of
the quarry in the meanwhile would have detrimental impact on the local
environment.
10. Since it was relevant to ascertain the nature and status of the
activities carried out by the appellant after Ext.P22 judgment, especially
taking note of the fact that compounding of the past offences by itself would
not constitute a legal sanction to further any illegal activities, this court had
on directed respondent Nos.7 and 9 to file a statement regarding the activities
carried on in the relevant quarry after the compounding. Accordingly, a
2025:KER:98157
statement dated 10.12.2025 was filed by the 9th respondent, Geologist. The
relevant portion thereof reads as follows:
"Pursuant to the impugned interim order, this respondent has
conducted a site inspection on 18.11.2025, it was noticed that no
quarrying operations were conducted by the appellant. Further, it
was noticed that no stock of extracted quantity of Granite Building
Stone in the quarry. It is also submitted that this respondent has not
noticed any violations in quarrying operations after compounding of
the offence."
11. It is discernible from the above statement filed by the Geologist
that, after the compounding, no violations had been noted, and as pointed
out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, not much of quarrying
activity itself had been carried out thereafter.
12. We find merit in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that
since the appellant possesses the Environmental Clearance as well as the
relevant permissions/certificates to continue with the quarrying operation, in
the light of the statement filed by the Geologist, who had been vide Ext. P22
judgment been directed to oversee the quarrying activity; there was no reason
to interdict the operation of the quarry by the appellant as long as it remained
within the parameters laid down by law and as per the permissions/licenses
granted. The direction in the impugned interim order that till the exercise as
directed therein in terms of Rule 68(2) and Rule 50 is completed, the
2025:KER:98157
quarrying activities shall be stopped, does indeed put fetters on the right of
the appellant to carry out the legally permitted quarrying activities.
13. Since the appellant has all requisite permissions and sanctions for
conducting quarrying operations, and as it has been reported by the Geologist
that there has been no violation after the compounding of the earlier
violations, there is no reason to stop the quarrying activities while the exercise
as directed under Rule 68(2) and Rule 50 are underway/ completed.
14. In view of the above, the interim order dated 13.10.2025 of the
learned Single Judge, to the extent it directs the appellant to stop all further
quarrying activities, while the exercise directed to be carried out therein under
Rule 68(2) and Rule 50 is completed, is set aside. The appellant shall be
permitted to operate the quarry strictly in accordance with the law while the
other directions in the interim order are carried out. The 9th respondent
Geologist, shall as directed in Ext.P22 judgment continue to oversee that the
appellant is operating the quarry in accordance with law and as per the
mandates of the licenses/permits. It is clarified that, except to the above
limited extent, we have not interfered with any of the observations/
directions of the learned Single Judge in the impugned interim order nor
touched upon the merits of the matter.
2025:KER:98157
15. The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly. The modification of
the impugned interim order shall remain confined/limited to the above
extent. The parties are reverted to the learned Single Judge to pursue their
contentions in the WP (C). All questions are left open.
Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
NITIN JAMDAR
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M
JUDGE
csl
