Madras High Court
C.Jegadeesan vs State Level Environment Impact ... on 2 November, 2021
W.P.(MD) No.19402 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan v. SEIAA, Tamilnadu rep, by its Member Secretary
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.11.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.(MD)No.19402 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.16136 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority – Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Member Secretary,
3rd Floor, Panagal Maligai,
No. 1, Jeenis Road,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
2.State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC)- Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Member Secretary,
3rd Floor, Panagal Maligai,
No. 1, Jeenis Road,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the
application of the petitioner for EC dated 10.09.2019 in
Ref(SIA/TN/MIN/42577/2019) – File No.7159/2019 for grant of lease
Page No.1 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19402 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan v. SEIAA, Tamilnadu rep, by its Member Secretary
for quarrying gravel, rough stones and jelly for the patta land bearing
S.F. Nos.1040/5, 1041/1, 1041/2, 1041/3 & 1041/4 admeasuring 1.46.5
Hectares in Sevalkulam Village, Tiruvenkadam Taluk, Tenkasi District.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sanjeevi
For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
Standing Counsel
ORDER
Prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for EC, dated
10.09.2019 in Ref(SIA/TN/MIN/42577/2019) – File No.7159/2019 for
grant of lease for quarrying gravel, rough stones and jelly for the patta
land bearing S.F.Nos.1040/5, 1041/1, 1041/2, 1041/3 & 1041/4
admeasuring 1.46.5 Hectares in Sevalkulam Village, Tiruvenkadam
Taluk, Tenkasi District.
2.The petitioner is having lands at various Survey numbers, viz.,
Survey Nos.1040/5, 1041/1, 1041/2, 1041/3 & 1041/4 measuring 1.46.5
Hectares in Sevalkulam Village, Tiruvenkadam Taluk, Tenkasi District.
In order to have a gravel, rough stones and jelly quarrying in the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19402 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan v. SEIAA, Tamilnadu rep, by its Member Secretary
patta land belongs to the petitioner, the petitioner obtained lease-cum
-permission from the District Collector vide his proceedings, dated
14.12.2011.
3.A lease agreement has been executed by the District Collector in
favour of the petitioner on 22.04.2012 for a period of five years
commencing from 22.04.2012, which ends on 21.04.2017. Accordingly,
the petitioner running the quarry unit during the lease period.
4.When that being so, subsequent to the development of march of
law, it has become mandatory that all quarry operators should get an
Environment Clearance from the State Level Environment Impact
Assessment Authority (SEIAA), that is, the first respondent herein and
without such Environment Clearance, quarry operations shall not be
permitted.
5.In this context, the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession
Rules, 1959 is having a Rule, that is, Rule 42 under the heading
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19402 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan v. SEIAA, Tamilnadu rep, by its Member Secretary
Submission of Environment Clearance for the Grant of quarry lease for
minor minerals including granite.
6. Sub Rule (iii) of Rule 42 (1) makes it clear that, within a period
of 270 days, the existing quarrying operators must get the Environment
Clearance from the State Level Environment Impact Assessment
Authority (In short 'SEIAA').
7.The said period of 270 days had subsequently been extended at
various point of time by issuing necessary Government Orders and
ultimately, the period within which the existing quarry operator must get
the Environment Clearance and produce to the Mining Department to
continue the operation has been extended to 630 days. In order to
appreciate the same, the relevant Rule, namely, the Rule 42(iii) is
extracted hereunder:
“42.(iii) Where quarrying operations for Minor
Minerals including granites have been undertaken
before the commencement of these rules without
environment clearance, such holder of minor mineral
including granite leases shall submit the environment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19402 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan v. SEIAA, Tamilnadu rep, by its Member Secretary
clearance within six hundred and thirty days from the
date of commencement of these rules.”
8.With these legal background, it is a case projected by the
petitioner that, though the petitioner was having the quarry right as
given by the District Collector, where there has been a lease deed
executed between the District Collector and the petitioner, dated
22.04.2012 under which for five years period from 22.04.2012 upto
21.04.2017 the petitioner can quarry.
9.However, in view of the afore-stated legal position, where it
become mandatory on the part of the quarrying operator to get the
Environment Clearance from SEIAA and the extended period for
getting such Environment Clearance was only 630 days from the
notification, which was issued sometime in 2015, the petitioner infact
on the expiry of 630 days, exactly, that is, on 10.01.2017 stopped the
quarrying operation.
10.Thereafter, the petitioner made application to the respondents
herein, especially, the first respondent, on 10.09.2019 to consider his
request for grant of Environment Clearance for the purpose of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19402 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan v. SEIAA, Tamilnadu rep, by its Member Secretary
continuing the quarry operation or to get further leasehold right from the
Mining Department/District Collector concerned.
11.The said application submitted by the petitioner, dated
10.09.2019, though had been considered by the first respondent, they
have not granted the same, but they keep it pending on the alleged
reason that, as against some penalty imposed against the petitioner by
the Mining Department, dated 20.08.2019, the petitioner had filed a writ
petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.22237 of 2019, where, though
an order of interim stay had been obtained, the said writ petition is still
pending before this Court for consideration. Unless and until the writ
petition is decided in one way or other, the respondents would not
proceed further on the application of the petitioner, dated 10.09.2019 for
grant of Environment Clearance.
12.In view of the said stand taken by the respondents in
considering the application of the petitioner for grant of Environment
Clearance and the same has been kept pending from the year 2019,
having no other option, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19402 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan v. SEIAA, Tamilnadu rep, by its Member Secretary
with the aforesaid prayer seeking for a Mandamus.
13.I have heard Mr.V.Sanjeevi, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, who would submit that, by the communication, dated
31.10.2020, the respondent, that is, SEIAA, has given the reason that in
view of the pendency of the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.22237 of
2019 filed by the petitioner before this Court, the application submitted
by the petitioner for Environment Clearance appraisal would be
considered only after the obtaining the judgment in the said case, as a
reason for presently not considering the application of the petitioner for
grant of Environment Clearance.
14.The said reason, according to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, is untenable, because, first of all the order impugned in the
said writ petition is the order of penalty imposed by the District
Collector concerned, dated 20.08.2019, wherein the District Collector
imposed the penalty stating that for the period between 15.01.2016 and
10.01.2017, the petitioner since continued the quarrying operation
unmindful of the mandate that Environment Clearance should be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19402 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan v. SEIAA, Tamilnadu rep, by its Member Secretary
obtained and produced without which the quarrying operation should
not have been conducted and based on such decision, the penalty to the
extent of Rs.12,23,196/- was imposed. The said order infact was
challenged in the said writ petition, where an interim order of stay has
been granted by this Court, by order, dated 21.10.2019 and the said writ
petition still has been pending before this Court.
15.He would also submit that, insofar as the said issue as to
whether the quarrying operation done by various quarry operators
without producing the Environment Clearance during the extended
period for production of the Environment Clearance upto 630 days
would invite the imposition of any penalty was decided by this Court in
a batch of writ petitions, by order, dated 19.08.2020 in the matter of
L.Ahmed Abdul Razack v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, where the
writ Court has taken the view that in view of the extended period, that
kind of penalty could not be imposed.
16.It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner that, though a different view has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19402 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan v. SEIAA, Tamilnadu rep, by its Member Secretary
been taken by the Principal Seat of this Court on the similar issue, now,
the issue has been referred before a larger bench for consideration,
therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner as stated supra, in the
said W.P.(MD)No.22237 of 2019 is also to be decided by a larger bench
and that is the reason why the said writ petition has been kept pending.
17.Therefore, pointing out these developments, the learned
counsel for the petitioner would canvass the point that, first of all, the
petitioner did not operate the quarry even for a single day beyond the
630 days period as provided under Rule 42(iii) of the Rules referred to
above. Therefore, the very order passed by the District Collector, dated
20.08.2019, which was the subject matter in the writ petition referred to
above itself would not stand in the legal scrutiny. Be that as it may,
insofar as the present application submitted by the petitioner to get an
Environment Clearance is concerned, independently on merits, such an
application can very well be considered by the first respondent, who is
empowered to consider the same, therefore, the pendency of the said
writ petition, which is no way connected with the independent function
of the first respondent to decide the application cannot stand in the way
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19402 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan v. SEIAA, Tamilnadu rep, by its Member Secretary
of the first respondent. Therefore, citing the said reason, the first
respondent cannot abdicate the powers and cannot keep the application
pending endlessly for more than three years period, therefore, the
learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to issue
a suitable direction by way of Mandamus.
18.Heard Mr.N.Dilipkumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the respondents, who, on instructions, would submit that, when the
action on the part of the petitioner to run the quarry upto 10.01.2017
itself is the question, which is the subject matter in the earlier writ
petition which is admittedly pending, therefore, one way or other, unless
that writ petition is decided, it may not be justifiable on the part of the
respondent to proceed with the present application of the petitioner to
grant the Environment Clearance as it has become mandatory pursuant
to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that Environment
Clearance must have been obtained by every quarry operator without
which no quarrying operation shall be undertaken.
19.Since the said order of the Supreme Court was passed on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19402 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan v. SEIAA, Tamilnadu rep, by its Member Secretary
27.02.2012, merely because the notification has come subsequently by
introducing the Rule concerned, the periodical extension of the time up
to 630 days itself is a larger issue, that can be gone into by this Court in
the pending writ petitions, which are now being referred to before the
larger bench.
20.Therefore, unless and until that issue is decided one way or
other, by an authoritative pronouncement by the larger bench, it may not
be justifiable on the part of the respondent to take up the application
filed for getting Environment Clearance by the petitioner to decide the
same and for grant of Environment Clearance, as that would run contra
to the stand already taken by the Environment Clearance authority.
Therefore, uniformly in these kind of applications, the said stand has
been taken by the Environment Clearance Authority and the petitioner's
case is one among them, therefore, the said reason stated by the SEIAA
for holding the application of the petitioner from 2019 is fully
justifiable. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel would seek
indulgence of this Court to reject this Petition at this moment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19402 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan v. SEIAA, Tamilnadu rep, by its Member Secretary
21.I have considered the said rival submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed
before this Court.
22.No doubt, the petitioner is a lease-cum-licence holder to have
quarry operation for the period of five years and the said five years
period would be ending only on 21.04.2017. Therefore, till such time,
there was no further impediment for the petitioner to run the quarrying
operation.
23.However, in view of the decision taken by the Hon'ble
Supreme as referred to above in the year 2012, subsequently, the State
authorities have come forward to insert the Rule or to introduce the Rule
by issuing a notification, whereby under Rule 42 as has been referred to
above, it has become mandatory that every quarry operator should get
an Environment Clearance from the respondent, that is, SEIAA without
which they cannot operate the quarry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19402 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan v. SEIAA, Tamilnadu rep, by its Member Secretary
24.However, the Rule making authorities with their wisdom
extended the time to get such Environment Clearance and produce the
same at various point of time from 180 days to 630 days.
25.Therefore, as per the latest extension, every existing quarry
operator would be entitled to get the Environment Clearance and
produce the same within 630 days, that means, upto 630 days from the
notification, they can continue the quarrying operation without
Environment Clearance, however, beyond 630 days only it become a
violation of the Rule. This is what the exact import of Sub Rule (iii) of
Rule 42(1) of the Rules.
26.Here in the case in hand, knowing well that the 630 days
period comes to an end on 10.01.2017, the petitioner admittedly stopped
the quarrying operation and this is evidence from the very order passed
by the District Collector, dated 20.08.2019, where he has stated that, the
petitioner operated the quarry only upto 10.01.2017. In order to
appreciate the same, the relevant portion of the order, dated 20.08.2019
passed by the District Collector is extracted hereunder:
“3.vdNt jhq;fs; 15.01.2016 Kjy; 10.01.2017
Kba Rw;Wr;R+oy; ,irT ,d;wp Fthhpg;gzp
Nkw;nfhz;L FthhpapypUe;J vLj;Jr; nrd;w
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19402 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan v. SEIAA, Tamilnadu rep, by its Member Secretary
fdpkj;jpw;F cz;lhd fdpkj;njhif gpd;tUkhW
fzf;fplg;gl;L fPo;f;fz;l muR jiyg;gpy; nrYj;jp
mry; ryhid ,t;tYtyfj;jpy; rkh;gpf;FkhW
Nfl;Lf;nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ.
t. fhy vLj;Jr; fdpkj; nrYj;j
vz;. tiuaiw nry;yg;gl;l njhif Ntz;ba
fdpkj;jpd; (1 f.kP) fdpkj;
msT njhif
1. 15.01.2016 312 283 88295
Kjy;
31.03.2016
2. 01.04.2016 3492 325 1134900
Kjy;
10.01.2017
nkhj;jk; 3804 1223196
4.Nkw;gb fdpk njhifahd &.12>23>196/-
(&gha; gd;dpnuz;L ,yl;rj;J ,Ugj;J
%d;whapuj;J E}w;W njhz;Z}w;W MW kl;Lk;)
fPo;f;fz;l muR jiyg;gpy; cld; nrYj;jp
mjd; mry; nry;yhid ,t;tYtyfj;jpy;
rkh;g;gpf;FkhW Nfl;Lf;nfhs;sg;gLfpwJ. jtWk;
gl;rj;jpy; 1959-k; tUlj;jpa jkpo;ehL rpW fdpk
rYif tpjpfspd;gb chpa Nky; eltbf;if
vLf;fg;gLk; vdTk; njhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ.”
27.Therefore upto 10.01.2017, prima facie the petitioner is saved
by the extended period of 630 days under Rule 42(1)(iii) of the Rules to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19402 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan v. SEIAA, Tamilnadu rep, by its Member Secretary
produce the Environment Clearance. If at all the petitioner goes beyond
the 630 days and continue to operate the quarry, certainly, that would be
a violation of Rule 42 and in that case, such violation can be noticed by
the respondents SEIAA also in considering their application for grant of
Environment Clearance.
28.However, in the case of the petitioner is concerned prima facie
this Court find that, he has not violated the 630 days period limitation to
get the Environment Clearance and after making application, the
petitioner has been waiting all along for these three years without
having the quarrying operation. Therefore, this Court feel that, the said
reasoning given by the respondent SEIAA for holding the application of
the petitioner without taking any decision for grant of Environment
Clearance may not be justifiable.
29. It was argued by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the respondent that, whether rightly or wrongly, a decision has been
taken at the meeting of SEAC on 12.02.2021, where, it was decided
that, because of the pendency of the earlier writ petition in W.P.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19402 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan v. SEIAA, Tamilnadu rep, by its Member Secretary
(MD)No.22237 of 2019 filed by the petitioner, where an interim order
has been granted by this Court, the Environment Clearance appraisal
would only be done after obtaining the judgment in the said case is
pronounced.
30.On perusal of the said minutes of the said SEIAA, this Court
feel that, the said reasoning cited by the SEIAA for deferring the
decision to be taken on the application of the petitioner for grant of
Environment Clearance also may not be justifiable, because, each and
every application submitted by the quarry operators shall be
independently considered and decided on merits and in accordance with
law.
31.Nowhere in the Rule, it is stated that, if there is any earlier
Court proceedings is pending, the applicant, who seeks for Environment
Clearance may not be entitled to get the same or such application can be
deferred endlessly unless and until a decision is taken by the law Courts,
where any earlier legal dispute or case filed by the applicant has been
pending decision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19402 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan v. SEIAA, Tamilnadu rep, by its Member Secretary
32.If that kind of view, as has been taken in the minutes recorded
by the SEAC, dated 12.02.2021 is accepted, then there will be no
solution in deciding any application filed before the SEIAA on the
ground that, such applicant had already approached the Court of law in
an earlier lease period for any dispute between the licensing authority
and the quarry licensee.
33.Therefore, such an unsustainable reason given by the SEAC in
its meeting, dated 12.02.2021 may not be the plausible reason for
withholding the application of the petitioner, dated 10.09.2019.
34.If at all any decision is to be taken in the earlier writ petition,
which is now pending along with the connected writ petitions for
adjudication by a larger Bench, that can be decided on its own merits.
However, that pendency of the earlier writ petition would not stand in
the way for the respondent to independently decide the application of
the petitioner for grant of Environment Clearance. Therefore, this Court
feel that, the petitioner would be entitled to get a direction from this
Court by way of mandamus to the respondents to consider the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19402 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan v. SEIAA, Tamilnadu rep, by its Member Secretary
application of the petitioner, dated 10.09.2019 and decide the same on
merits and in accordance with law for grant of Environment Clearance.
35.In that view of the matter, this Court feel that this writ petition
can be disposed of by issuing the following order:
“that there shall be a direction to the respondents to
consider the application of the petitioner, dated
10.09.2019 and pass orders thereon, on its own merits and
in accordance with law. It is made clear that the pendency
of the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.
(MD)No.22237 of 2019 shall not stand in the way for the
respondents to independently decide the said application
of the petitioner for grant of Environment Clearance. The
afore-stated exercise shall be undertaken by the
respondents and final order shall be passed within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.”
36.With these direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19402 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan v. SEIAA, Tamilnadu rep, by its Member Secretary
Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.11.2021
Index: Yes
Internet: Yes
PJL
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19402 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan v. SEIAA, Tamilnadu rep, by its Member Secretary
To
1.The Member Secretary,
State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority – Tamil Nadu,
3rd Floor, Panagal Maligai,
No. 1, Jeenis Road,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.
2.The Member Secretary,
State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC)- Tamil Nadu,
3rd Floor, Panagal Maligai,
No. 1, Jeenis Road,
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.19402 of 2021
C.Jegadeesan v. SEIAA, Tamilnadu rep, by its Member Secretary
PJL
W.P.(MD)No.19402 of 2021
02.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
