Kerala High Court

Nedukunnam Grama Panchayath vs The State Of Kerala on 10 February, 2025

                                                          2025:KER:11180
W.P (C) No.2090/2025              -1-

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

     MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 21ST MAGHA, 1946

                         WP(C) NO. 2090 OF 2025

PETITIONER/S:

          NEDUKUNNAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
          NEDUMKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 686542


          BY ADVS.
          NISHA GEORGE
          GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
          N.ANAND
          SILPA SREEKUMAR



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     THE STATE OF KERALA,
          DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN -
          695001

    2     THE DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
          KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN -
          695004

    3     THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
          DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE,
          KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001

    4     SRI. CHANDRAMANI S.,
          THAVOOTTU HOUSE, PRAKKULAM P.O., THRIKKARUVA, KOLLAM
          DISTRICT, PIN - 691602
                                                     2025:KER:11180
W.P (C) No.2090/2025           -2-

    5     UNION OF INDIA,
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT,
          FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN,
          JOR BAGH ROAD, ALIGANJ, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110003


          BY ADVS.
          RAMEEZ NOOH
          S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
          FATHIMA K.
          DANIC ANTONY
          AMIN ALI ASHRAF
          SHAFNA SINU



OTHER PRESENT:

          SRI. APPU P S (GP)


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                       2025:KER:11180
W.P (C) No.2090/2025                      -3-

                                     JUDGMENT

A Grama Panchayath has filed the present writ petition seeking a

writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 quarrying permit for ordinary earth issued

by the District Office of Department of Mining and Geology, Government of

Kerala; and to direct the restoration of the land where certain quarrying

activities had been conducted pursuant to Ext.P7.

The brief facts & submissions:-

2. The 4th respondent is the owner of certain property falling within the

jurisdiction of the petitioner Panchayath. She applied for and obtained

Ext.P7 quarrying permit without obtaining an Environmental Clearance (EC)

as mandated by the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification,

20061 for extraction of 1,15,065 Metric Tonnes of ordinary earth from an area

of o.9646 Hectares in Re-Sy.Nos,131/3-1, 131/4-1, 131/7-2 and 132/2 of Block

No.18 of Nedumkunnam Village of Chanaganassery Taluk of Kottayam

District. It is not disputed that normally this quarrying permit would have

required a prior EC in terms of the provisions of the EIA Notification 2006.

However, on the basis that the quarrying was for the purposes of extracting

ordinary earth in connection with the work related to the six laining of

'Thuravoor-Paravoor' Section of National Highway- 66, the quarrying permit

1Issued under the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986 2025:KER:11180

was issued without insisting for an EC and on the basis of Standard Operating

Procedure (SOP) documents submitted by the project proponent before State

Pollution Control Board. When the 4 th respondent started extracting ordinary

earth, there was a protest by the local people. This led to the filing of W.P.

(C)No.44444/2024 before this Court by the 4th respondent for police

protection. This Court, by interim order dated 17.12.2024, directed the

Station House Officer, Karukachal Police Station to provide police protection

to the life of the 4th respondent and workers for the purposes of carrying out

the quarrying activities pursuant to Ext.P7.

3. It is the case of the 4th respondent before this Court that a Crime

No.1337/2024 was registered against the President of the Nedumkunnam

Grama Panchayath for obstructing the works being carried out by the 4 th

respondent and it is on account of the same that the present writ petition has

been filed before this Court.

4. According to the petitioner, the exemption from obtaining prior EC

was on the basis of Ext.P2 notification (S.O.1224(E) dated 28.03.2020) issued

by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change whereby the EIA

Notification, 2006 was amended and certain projects listed in Appendix-IX

were exempted from the requirement of prior EC. Clause 6 of Appendix-IX

incorporated into the EIA Notification, 2006 through Ext.P2 notification 2025:KER:11180

dated 28th March, 2020 reads thus:-

"6. Extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for the linear projects such as roads, pipelines, etc."

According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 notification was found illegal by the

Supreme Court in Ext.P5 judgment in Noble M. Paikada v. Union of

India; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 369 and therefore, the 4th respondent could

not have been granted with a quarrying permit on the ground that the

quarrying of ordinary earth was in connection with a National Highway

Project.

5. It is the case of the 4th respondent before this Court that Ext.P5

judgment was later clarified by the Supreme Court on an application filed by

the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and by the order marked as

Ext.R4(a) along with the counter affidavit of the 4 th respondent, the Supreme

Court had clarified that the projects for which work orders have been issued

by the NHAI prior to 21.03.2024 will remain unaffected by the judgment

dated 21.03.2024 in Noble M. Paikada (supra). It is their case that

Ext.R4(a) order was deliberately suppressed before this Court by the

petitioner. The 4th respondent relies on Ext.R4(b) agreement between the 4 th

respondent and M/s. K.C.C Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Ext.R4(c) and Ext.R4(d)

letters issued by the NHAI to the Geologist, the SOP, Ext.R4(g) clearance

letter from the State Pollution Control Board, Ext.R4(e) document to show 2025:KER:11180

that M/s. K.C.C Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., had been issued with a work order on

15.11.2021 and Ext.R4(j) mining plan and final quarry closure plan to contend

that the quarrying of ordinary earth from the land belonging to the 4 th

respondent in connection with the work of the National Highway-66 is

exempted from the requirement of EC and therefore, the petitioner is not

entitled to any relief from this Court. It is submitted that the decision of the

Panchayath to file a writ petition and seek relief from this Court is vitiated by

mala fides and is only on account of the fact that a criminal case has been

registered against the President of the Panchayath at the instance of the 4 th

respondent. The 4th respondent, thus, prays that the writ petition be

dismissed.

6. It is contended, in reply, that a learned Single Judge of this Court,

while considering an identical question in Ext.P.13 judgment in Oriental

Structural Engineers Private Limited v. The Circle Inspector of

Police, Ramamangalam Police Station and Ors;

MANU/KE/4269/2024 has considered the judgment of the Supreme Court

in Noble M. Paikada (supra) and the clarificatory order issued by the

Supreme Court on the application of the NHAI and has come to the

conclusion that where a quarrying permit is issued after the date of the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Noble M. Paikada (supra), the 2025:KER:11180

clarificatory order of the Supreme Court will have no application. It is

submitted that, again, in the order on I.A.No.1/2024 in W.P.

(C)No.32704/2024, another learned Single Judge of this Court has also taken

the view that the clarificatory order of the Supreme Court does not apply to

any quarrying permit issued after the date of Ext.P5 judgment, namely,

21.3.2024. It is submitted that, in such circumstances, the respondents have

to be restrained from going ahead with the extraction of soil/ordinary earth

on the basis of Ext.P7 permit.

7. I have heard Sri. George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioner on the instructions of Adv. N. Anand, the learned

Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, Sri. S. Sreekumar,

learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent on the instructions

of Adv. Rameez Nooh and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India - in

charge of the 5th respondent.

8. Having heard the counsel as above, I am of the view that the

petitioner is entitled to succeed. It is not disputed that the mining activity in

respect of which Ext.P7 permit has been issued would require a prior EC in

terms of the EIA Notification, 2006 unless this Court were to hold that Ext.P2

notification amending the EIA Notification, 2006 to the extent it is saved by

Ext.R4(a) clarificatory order of the Supreme Court is to apply to the 2025:KER:11180

extraction of soil from the property of the 4 th respondent. It is also not in

dispute that the 4th respondent has entered into an agreement with M/s.

K.C.C Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., which is engaged in the development of the National

Highway-66 from Thuravoor Thekku to Paravoor and that the work order in

respect of the said work was issued on 15.11.2021 i.e. prior to the date of

Ext.P5 judgment of the Supreme Court, which is on 21.03.2024. This Court,

while considering an identical question in Ext.P.13 judgment in Oriental

Structural Engineers Private Limited (supra) held as follows:-

"10. The petitioner's contention is that, since the work order for the subject project was issued between 28.03.2020 and 21.03.2024, and removal of ordinary earth being part of that project, environment clearance is not required. The argument is liable to be rejected, since the Apex Court has clarified that, striking down of Item 6 of Appendix- IX will not affect work orders issued by the NHAI between 28.03.2020 and 21.03.2024. Even if it is accepted that the work order in the instant case was issued prior to 21.03.2024, Ext.P3 permit is issued only on 12.09.2024. Therefore, as on the date of issuance of Ext.P3, the exemption provided for extraction of earth for linear projects was not in existence. The clarificatory order does not also resurrect the exemption granted to linear projects by virtue of Item 6 of Appendix- IX. Moreover, Ext.P3 does not mention that the quarrying permit is granted for carrying out the work awarded to the petitioner by the NHAI as per Ext.P1. As submitted by the learned counsel for the party respondents, if the clarificatory order is understood to be extending to even extraction works for which permit is issued after 21.03.2024, that 2025:KER:11180

will result in massive excavation, since work orders for most ongoing National Highway projects would have been granted between 28.03.2020 and 21.03.2024. As such, the petitioner has failed to establish its right to conduct quarrying of ordinary earth without environmental clearance. The basic requirement for issuing a writ of mandamus, viz; the writ petitioner should be having a legal right, is absent as far as the petitioner is concerned."

The judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court was the subject matter

of W.A.No.1877/2024. The Division Bench did not disturb the findings of the

learned Single Judge. However, the Division Bench took the view that since

the findings of the learned Single Judge were rendered in a writ petition

seeking police protection, the findings would not preclude the petitioner in

the writ petition from seeking substantive relief and a declaration that the

excavation of the ordinary earth in the facts and circumstances of that case

would not require a prior EC. While the learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the 4th respondent would be right in contending that the Division Bench had

not rendered any finding on merits regarding the view taken by the learned

Single Judge in the judgment in Oriental Structural Engineers Private

Limited (supra), I find myself in complete agreement with the view

expressed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 01.11.2024 in

Oriental Structural Engineers Private Limited (supra). Since Ext.P.7

was issued after 21.03.2024 it will not be saved by Ext.R.4(a) clarificatory 2025:KER:11180

order.

9. That apart, there is yet another aspect to the matter. The State of Kerala

has a unique topography. It is wedged between the Western Ghats and the

Arabian Sea. There is huge pressure on land and the area is thickly

populated. Of late, the State has been witnessing a large number of natural

disasters. Allegedly, some of these disasters are also man-made and on

account of extensive mining/quarrying and associated activities. Even if I

were to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the 4th

respondent that by virtue of the exemption granted by Ext.P2 notification an

EC was not mandated for the project in question, I am of the view that if

circumstances so require, it would still be open to this Court to insist that

quarrying operations can be carried out only after obtaining an EC as

contemplated by Ext.P1 notification, especially when the facts and

circumstances of a particular case before this Court require this Court to take

such a view. The 'precautionary principle' is well established in

environmental law. In Pragnesh Shah v. Arun Kumar Sharma,

(2022) 11 SCC 493 it was held:-

"29. The precautionary principle finds its clearest elaboration in Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992, which states:

2025:KER:11180

"In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

30. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, a two-Judge Bench of this Court noted the import of this principle in Indian jurisprudence by highlighting that it requires the State to act for preventing actual environmental harm, even in the face of scientific uncertainty. The Court held :

"48. Development and the protection of environment are not enemies. If without degrading the environment or minimising adverse effects thereupon by applying stringent safeguards, it is possible to carry on development activity applying the principles of sustainable development, in that eventuality, development has to go on because one cannot lose sight of the need for development of industries, irrigation resources and power projects, etc. including the need to improve employment opportunities and the generation of revenue. A balance has to be struck. ... Principle 15 of the Rio Conference of 1992 relating to the applicability of precautionary principle, which stipulates that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent 2025:KER:11180

environmental degradation, is also required to be kept in view. In such matters, many a times, the option to be adopted is not very easy or in a straitjacket. If an activity is allowed to go ahead, there may be irreparable damage to the environment and if it is stopped, there may be irreparable damage to economic interest. In case of doubt, however, protection of environment would have precedence over the economic interest. Precautionary principle requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm. The harm can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion. It is not always necessary that there should be direct evidence of harm to the environment."

31. In Research Foundation for Science Technology, National Resource Policy v. Union of India, a two-Judge Bench of this Court noted that the precautionary principle is part of the Indian jurisprudence, arising from Articles 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution. The Court held :

"16. The legal position regarding applicability of the precautionary principle and polluter-pays principle which are part of the concept of sustainable development in our country is now well-settled. In Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India, a three-Judge Bench of this Court, after referring to the principles evolved in various international conferences and to the concept of "sustainable development", inter alia, held that the precautionary principle and polluter-pays principle have now emerged 2025:KER:11180

and govern the law in our country, as is clear from Articles 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of our Constitution and that, in fact, in the various environmental statutes including the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, these concepts are already implied. These principles have been held to have become part of our law. Further, it was observed in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum case that these principles are accepted as part of the customary international law and hence there should be no difficulty in accepting them as part of our domestic law."

32. This position has been reiterated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Hospitality Assn. of Mudumalai v. In Defence of Environment & Animals. The Court has held :

"39. ... As was held by this Court in M.C. Mehta (Badkhal & Surajkund Lakes Matter) v. Union of India, the "precautionary principle" has been accepted as a part of the law of our land. Articles 21, 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution give a clear mandate to the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. It is the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. The precautionary principle makes it mandatory for the State Government to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. In this light, we have no hesitation in holding that in order to 2025:KER:11180

protect the elephant population in the Sigur Plateau region, it was necessary and appropriate for the State Government to limit commercial activity in the areas falling within the elephant corridor."

33. In Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, this Court elaborated on the precautionary principle in the following terms:

"73. The principle set out above must apply in the widest amplitude to ensure that it is not only resorted to for adjudicatory purposes but also for other "decisions" or "orders" to governmental authorities or polluters, when they fail to 'to anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation' Two aspects must therefore be emphasised i.e. that the Tribunal is itself required to carry out preventive and protective measures, as well as hold governmental and private authorities accountable for failing to uphold environmental interests. Thus, a narrow interpretation for the NGT's powers should be eschewed to adopt one which allows for full flow of the forum's power within the environmental domain.

74. It is not only a matter of rhetoric that the Tribunal is to remain ever vigilant, but an important legal onus is cast upon it to act with promptitude to deal with environmental exigencies. The responsibility is not just to resolve legal ambiguities but to arrive at a reasoned and fair result for 2025:KER:11180

environmental problems which are adversarial as well as nonadversarial."

34. The precautionary principle requires the State to act in advance to prevent environmental harm from taking place, rather than by adopting measures once the harm has taken place. In deciding when to adopt such action, the State cannot hide behind the veil of scientific uncertainty in calculating the exact scientific harm. In H.P. Bus-Stand Management & Development Authority v. Central Empowered Committee, a three-Judge Bench of this Court emphasised the duty of the State to create conceptual, procedural and institutional structures to guide environmental regulation in compliance with the "environmental rule of law". The Court noted that such regulation must arise out of a multi-disciplinary analysis between policy, regulatory and scientific perspectives. The Court held:

"49. The environmental rule of law, at a certain level, is a facet of the concept of the rule of law. But it includes specific features that are unique to environmental governance, features which are sui generis. The environmental rule of law seeks to create essential tools -- conceptual, procedural and institutional to bring structure to the discourse on environmental protection. It does so to enhance our understanding of environmental challenges -- of how they have been shaped by humanity's interface with nature in the past, how they continue to be affected by its engagement with nature in the present and the prospects for the future, if we were not to radically alter the course of destruction 2025:KER:11180

which humanity's actions have charted. The environmental rule of law seeks to facilitate a multi-disciplinary analysis of the nature and consequences of carbon footprints and in doing so it brings a shared understanding between science, regulatory decisions and policy perspectives in the field of environmental protection. It recognises that the "law"

element in the environmental rule of law does not make the concept peculiarly the preserve of lawyers and Judges. On the contrary, it seeks to draw within the fold all stakeholders in formulating strategies to deal with current challenges posed by environmental degradation, climate change and the destruction of habitats. The environmental rule of law seeks a unified understanding of these concepts. There are significant linkages between concepts such as sustainable development, the polluter pays principle and the trust doctrine. The universe of nature is indivisible and integrated. The state of the environment in one part of the earth affects and is fundamentally affected by what occurs in another part. Every element of the environment shares a symbiotic relationship with the others. It is this inseparable bond and connect which the environmental rule of law seeks to explore and understand in order to find solutions to the pressing problems which threaten the existence of humanity. The environmental rule of law is founded on the need to understand the consequences of our actions going beyond local, State and national boundaries. The rise in the oceans threatens not just maritime communities. The rise in temperatures, dilution of glaciers and growing desertification have consequences which go beyond the 2025:KER:11180

communities and creatures whose habitats are threatened. They affect the future survival of the entire ecosystem. The environmental rule of law attempts to weave an understanding of the connections in the natural environment which make the issue of survival a unified challenge which confronts human societies everywhere. It seeks to build on experiential learnings of the past to formulate principles which must become the building pillars of environmental regulation in the present and future. The environmental rule of law recognises the overlap between and seeks to amalgamate scientific learning, legal principle and policy intervention. Significantly, it brings attention to the rules, processes and norms followed by institutions which provide regulatory governance on the environment. In doing so, it fosters a regime of open, accountable and transparent decision making on concerns of the environment. It fosters the importance of participatory governance -- of the value in giving a voice to those who are most affected by environmental policies and public projects. The structural design of the environmental rule of law composes of substantive, procedural and institutional elements. The tools of analysis go beyond legal concepts. The result of the framework is more than just the sum total of its parts. Together, the elements which it embodies aspire to safeguard the bounties of nature against existential threats. For it is founded on the universal recognition that the future of human existence depends on how we conserve, protect and regenerate the environment today."

2025:KER:11180

35. The Court also acknowledged the difficulty faced in implementing such processes in the face of scientific uncertainty. However, it noted that courts cannot be stupefied into inaction due to scientific uncertainty but must take decisions to protect the environment based on whatever information is available. The Court held : (H.P. Bus- Stand case)

"53. However, even while using the framework of an environmental rule of law, the difficulty we face is this -- when adjudicating bodies are called on to adjudicate on environmental infractions, the precise harm that has taken place is often not susceptible to concrete quantification. While the framework provides valuable guidance in relation to the principles to be kept in mind while adjudicating upon environmental disputes, it does not provide clear pathways to determine the harm caused in multifarious factual situations that fall for judicial consideration. The determination of such harm requires access to scientific data which is often times difficult to come by in individual situations.

54. ... The point, therefore, is simply this -- the environmental rule of law calls on us, as Judges, to marshal the knowledge emerging from the record, limited though it may sometimes be, to respond in a stern and decisive fashion to violations of environmental law. We cannot be stupefied into inaction by not having access to complete details about the manner in which an environmental law 2025:KER:11180

violation has occurred or its full implications. Instead, the framework, acknowledging the imperfect world that we inhabit, provides a roadmap to deal with environmental law violations, an absence of clear evidence of consequences notwithstanding."

36. The precautionary principle envisages that the State cannot refuse to act to preserve the environment simply because all the scientific data may not be available. If there is some data to suggest that environmental degradation is possible, the State must step into action to prevent it from taking place. Indeed, it was this thought that compelled this Court in T.N. Godavarman to direct the State to identify ESZs across India, so that steps can be taken to identify areas where there is a greater possibility of environmental degradation and a plan is put in place to prevent such degradation before it actually makes the harm irreversible."

This is not a case where there is a lack of clarity in any scientific data. This is

a case where there is a complete lack of data as no study whatsoever has been

conducted to examine whether the removal of such a massive quantity of red

earth will have an adverse impact. In the facts of the present case, a Grama

Panchayath before this Court stating that the quarrying activities are at the

lower portion of a hillock and on the upper reaches of the hillock, and very

close to the area proposed to be mined there are several residential houses, a

Lower Primary School, religious institutions and two water tanks one having 2025:KER:11180

a capacity of 5,00,000 litres and the other having a capacity of 8,00,000

litres. It is also stated that there are houses in the lower reaches of the area

proposed to be mined. While the 4th respondent has a case that the

photographs produced along with the writ petition do not present the correct

picture, it remains a fact that the contention of the petitioner that the

quarrying activities are proposed at the base of a hillock does not appear to be

disputed. The allegations of mala fide against the president of the Panchayat

are weak and do not compel me to non-suit the petitioner. This Court cannot

shut its eyes to the fact that Ext.P7 contemplates the extraction of 1,15,065

Metric Tonnes of red earth from the base of a hillock. Therefore, the facts of

this case compel me to hold that the 4th respondent cannot be permitted to

continue with the quarrying operations on the basis of Ext.P7 without a prior

EC as contemplated by Ext.P7 notification. Therefore, this writ petition is

allowed. Ext.P7 is quashed. It is declared that the 4 th respondent is not

entitled to extract ordinary earth from the land belonging to the 4 th

respondent and mentioned in Ext.P7 without a prior EC as contemplated by

Ext.P1 notification.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE acd 2025:KER:11180

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 14.09.2006 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 IN SO 1553 (E)

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 28.03.2020 ISSUE BY RESPONDENT NO.5 IN SO 1224 (E)

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 08.08.2022 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 IN F. NO. 3- 70/2020-IA.IIIM [141127]

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 21.08.2023 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 5 IN F. NO. 3- 70/2020-IA.III[141127]

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.03.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPL. NOS. 1628- 1629 OF 2021

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 28.03.2024 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 IN NO. F. NO. 3-70/2020-IA.III[141127]

Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT FOR ORDINARY EARTH ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED 04.12.2024 IN NO. 06/2023-24/OE/QP/DOKOT- DMG/603/2024-M

Exhibit P8 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AREA COVERED BY EXHIBIT P7 PERMIT

Exhibit P9 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE AFTER THE INITIAL EXTRACTION OF ORDINARY EARTH

Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) 44444/2024

Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PETITIONER PANCHAYATH TO RESPONDENT NO.3 2025:KER:11180

Exhibit P12 PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON 16.01.2025 WHICH SHOWS THE REMOVAL OF RED EARTH.

EXHIBIT-P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.11.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO. 34959 OF 2024.

EXHIBIT-P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.A.NO. 1/2024 IN W.P.(C) NO. 32704 OF 2024.

EXHIBIT-P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON 24.12.2024 BY THE PETITIONER PANCHYAT.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.05.2024 IN MISC.

APPLICATION DAIRY NOS.21827/2024 IN C.A NOS.1628- 1629/2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT

EXHIBIT R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE SOIL EXCAVATION AGREEMENT DTD.

15.03.2024 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THIS RESPONDENT AND M/S. K.C.C BUILDCON PVT.LTD.

EXHIBIT R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE NHAI TO THE GEOLOGIST, DEPT. OF MINING AND GEOLOGY CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM

EXHIBIT R4(d) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT LETTER DATED 29.08.2024 ISSUED BY THE NHAI TO THE GEOLOGIST, DEPT. OF MINING AND GEOLOGY CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM

EXHIBIT R4(e) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER VIDE 11137/RO-KERALA/STATE GOVT. CORRESPONDENCE/105 DATED 21.05.2024,

Exhibit R4(f) TRUE COPY OF THE VIDE LETTER NO. DOKOT-

DMG/603/2024-M DATED 28.09.2024 ISSUED BY SENIOR GEOLOGIST IN THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THIS RESPONDENT

Exhibit R4(g) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VIDE LETTER NO. PCBDKT/654/2024-AE4 DATED 20.11.2024 ISSUED TO RESPONDENT NO. 3, ACKNOWLEDGING THE SOP 2025:KER:11180

AND GRANTING PERMIT FOR THE EXTRACTION OF ORDINARY EARTH

EXHIBIT R4(h) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION KSEB, PATHANAD VIDE THEIR LETTER NO. D.B/2023-24/PTD/21 DATED 19.07.2024

Exhibit R4(i) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF AWARD (LOA) VIDE NHAI/TECH/KL/THUR-PARA/NH-47/2019-20 DATED 15.11.2021

Exhibit R4(j) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINING PLAN AND FINAL QUARRY CLOSURE PLAN PREPARED BY RQP FOR NH 66 PROJECT IN THIS RESPONDENT'S LAND

Exhibit R4(k) TRUE COPY OF CRIME NO.1337 OF 2024 DATED 19.12.2024 REGISTERED BY THE KARUKACHAL POLICE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

Exhibit R4(l) TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.02.2024 SIGNED BY THE RESIDENT NAMED JAYALAL ENDORSING THE FACTUM OF NOC TO BE FILED BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT