Kerala High Court
M/S.Jbp Granite And Metal Pvt. Ltd vs Directorate Of Mining And Geology on 9 March, 2020
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WP(C).No.6187 OF 2020(W)
PETITIONER:
M/S.JBP GRANITE AND METAL PVT. LTD.,
KRISHNA, HARMONY GARDENS, TC 10/1665/1, CKRA-51,
NALANCHIRA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695015,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MR.JAYAN BABU.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN, SMT.SAYUJYA
SMT.V.S.RAKHEE, SMT.K.J.GISHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695041,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
2 KERALA STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AUTHORITY,
KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR,
THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695041,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3 STATE EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE,
KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR,
THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
4 THE GEOLOGIST,
DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
PATTOM PALACE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004.
SRI.JESTIN MATHEW, GOVT.PLEADER FOR R-1 & R-4
SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN,STANDING COUNSEL FOR R-2 & R-3
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P. (C) No. 6187 of 2020
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of March, 2020
JUDGMENT
The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:
"
I. To issue aWrit of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order to quash Exts. P10 Order No.1288/EC2/2019/SEIAA, dt 11-12-2019 and P12 Relevant pages of the Minutes of the 101st meeting of the 2nd respondent held on 17th & 18th January, 2020. II. Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext. P6 application submitted by the petitioner for issuance of Environmental Clearance to the petitioner to conduct quarrying operations in 2.1901 Hectares of land in Block No.25, Re.Sy.Nos.84/27, 84/29, 84/29-1, 84/29-2, 90/6, 90/6-1, 90/7, 90/7-1, 90/10, 96/2, 96/15, 96/16 and 96/17 of Nellanad Village, Nedumangad Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District.
III. Issue such other Order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper including awarding cost to the petitioner."
2. Heard Sri.Biju Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Jestin Mathew, learned Government Pleader appearing for R-1 & R-4, Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) appearing for R-2 & R-3.
3. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by Exts.P-10 & P-12 proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent, whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of Environmental Clearance (EC) for W.P. (C) No. 6187 of 2020 ..3..
conducting quarrying operations have been denied by the said authority. The 2nd respondent Kerala State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) is aided by the 3rd respondent State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) and the latter after making due inspection of the area concerned would give recommendations to the 2nd respondent SEIAA as to whether it is a fit case for grant of EC, and based on said recommendation given by the 3rd respondent SEAC, final decision is taken by the 2nd respondent SEIAA as to whether or not EC sought for the petitioner is to be granted for conducting operations like quarrying, etc.
4. Paragraph Nos. 4 to 6 at internal page 2 of Ext.P-10 proceedings reads as follows:
"4. The proposal was placed in the 100 th SEAC meeting held on 11 th & th 12 July, 2019. The proponent was present and the RQP made presentation. The Committee entrusted Dr.C.Bhaskaran, & Dr.G.Sankar for field inspection. The Subcommittee conducted field inspection on 09.08.2019.
5. The proposal was placed in the 105 th SEAC Meeting held on 28th & th 29 October, 2019. The Committee is of the opinion that the present proposal cannot be recommended for EC for the following reasons:
1.The area adjacent to the proposed quarry is densely populated.
2.There are many chances of hazardous rockfall in the proposed site.
6. The proposal was placed in the 99th SEIAA meeting held on 21st & 22 NOVEMBER 2019. As recommended by SEAC in its 105 th meeting held nd on 28th - 29th October, 2019, Authority decided to reject the proposal for EC and inform the proponent accordingly quoting the reasons for rejection pointed by SEAC."W.P. (C) No. 6187 of 2020
..4..
5. In the instant case, a reading of Ext.P-10 proceedings dated 11.12.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent more particularly paragraph Nos. 4 to 6 at internal page 2 would indicate that the proposal was initially placed in the 100th meeting of the 3rd respondent (SEAC) held on 11th & 12th of July, 2019, and at that time the writ petitioner along with his Recognized Qualified Person (RQP) was present. Thereupon, the 3 rd respondent SEAC has entrusted the task of field inspection to Dr.C.Bhaskaran & Dr.G.Sankar as Sub Committee, and the said Sub Committee conducted field inspection on 9.8.2019. Thereafter it appears that the proposal given by the said Sub Committee was placed in the 105th SEAC Meeting held on 28th & 29th of October, 2019, and the 3rd respondent SEAC opined that the present proposal of the petitioner cannot be recommended for grant of EC for quarrying purposes. Thereafter the proposal was placed in the 99 th meeting of 2nd respondent SEIAA held on 21st & 22nd of November, 2019, and going by the recommendations made by the 3 rd respondent SEAC, the 2nd respondent has decided to reject the proposal for EC, etc.
6. The specific case put up by the petitioner is to the effect that, though the petitioner and his RQP were allowed to make W.P. (C) No. 6187 of 2020 ..5..
presentation before the 3rd respondent SEAC in the meeting held on 11.12.2019 and the 3rd respondent had entrusted the task of field inspection to Dr.C.Bhaskaran & Dr.G.Sankar as Sub Committee, and thereafter the copy of inspection report of the said Sub Committee which was accepted by the 3 rd respondent and later by the 2nd respondent, was never given to the petitioner, and the petitioner was never given opportunity either by the 3rd respondent SEAC or by the 2nd respondent SEIAA to rebut the findings in the said inspection report.
7. Sri.Biju Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would specifically point out that Ext.P-14 report of the Village Officer would clearly show that there are no residential houses or whatsoever, within an area of 50 meters from the quarrying site, and therefore, ground No.1 given in paragraph No.5 of Ext.P-10 that the area adjacent to the proposed quarry is densely populated is without any factual finding whatsoever, and the petitioner had to be served with a copy of said report and had to be given an opportunity to rebut the said findings in the inspection report, both before the 3rd respondent SEAC and the 2nd respondent SEIAA, even though the petitioner had convinced W.P. (C) No. 6187 of 2020 ..6..
those authorities that materials like Ext.P-14 would show that the area adjacent to the proposed quarry is not densely populated, etc. So also, if the petitioner had given an opportunity he would have been able to rebut the other adverse allegation made therein that, there are many chances of hazardous rockfall in the proposed site, etc. Hence, the counsel for the petitioner would vehemently urge that entire decision making process which led to Exts.P-10 & P-12 is vitiated by flagrant violation of the elementary principles of natural justice due to the aforesaid reasons.
8. Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) appearing for R-2 & R-3 was requested by this Court on 2.3.2020 to get factual instructions on those aspects. Today when the matter has been taken up for consideration, on being specifically queried, the learned counsel appearing for R-2 & R-3 would point out that, though notice of inspection was actually given to the petitioner, copy of the inspection report of the Sub Committee was not given to the petitioner before the same was accepted either by the 3rd respondent or the 2nd respondent. Further it also appears that, the petitioner was not given any reasonable opportunity of being W.P. (C) No. 6187 of 2020 ..7..
heard either by the 3rd respondent or by the 2nd respondent before they had accepted the said inspection report. Hence, it is only to be held that the impugned decision making process which led to the emergence of decisions in Exts.P-10 & P-12 is liable to be interdicted for the simple reason that it is vitiated on account of flagrant and blatant violation of the elementary principles of natural justice and fairness. Accordingly, the impugned decisions at Exts.P-10 & P-12 which led to the rejection of grant of EC to the petitioner will stand set aside and the plea made by the petitioner for grant of EC as per Ext.P-6 application will stand remitted to the respondents 2 & 3 for consideration and decision afresh.
9. The 3rd respondent will ensure that a fresh inspection of the quarrying site is conducted with due prior notice to the petitioner and copy of inspection report should also be given to the petitioner in advance. Thereafter the petitioner through his RQP should be given an opportunity to present their versions so as to rebut the adverse findings if any in the said inspection report before the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent SEAC should take a considered decision as to whether or not recommendations can be made in favour of the petitioner through the 2 nd respondent, W.P. (C) No. 6187 of 2020 ..8..
after granting such reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through his authorised representative as aforestated. Thereafter, it is for the 3 rd respondent to make its appropriate recommendations to the 2nd respondent. Before the 2nd respondent thereafter takes final decision in the matter, the 2 nd respondent will also afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and should permit the petitioner through his RQP to present his version to rebut the adverse findings if any, in the said inspection report, and thereafter the 2nd respondent will take a considered final decision on the issue regarding the grant of EC to the petitioner. The entire process in this regard should be duly completed by the 2nd & 3rd respondents without much delay, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.
With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG W.P. (C) No. 6187 of 2020 ..9..
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF QUARRYING LEASE DATED 4.6.2018.
EXHIBIT P2 THE SURVEY MAP NO.199/2018 OF
TAHSILDAR, NEDUMANGAD, PERTAINING TO
THE ABOVE MENTIONED LAND.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT
NO.11462/M3/2018, DATED 2.11.2018 OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
NO.1697/DOT/ML/18, DATED 27.2.2019 OF
THE 4TH RESPONDENT APPROVING THE
MINING PLAN.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC DATED 19.3.2019
ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR
(GENERAL) AND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
11.3.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 SURVEY PLAN SHOWING AREA OF THE
PROPOSED QUARRY.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SURFACE GEOLOGICAL
PLAN OF THE PROPOSED QUARRY.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED
13.12.2019 OF MR.SADASIVAN NADAR.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.1288/EC2/2019/SEIAA, DATED
11.12.2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
9.12.2019 IN WPC.NO.32936/2019 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
W.P. (C) No. 6187 of 2020
..10..
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
MINUTES OF THE 101ST MEETING OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT HELD ON 17TH & 18TH
JANUARY 2020, ITEM NO.101.16.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
NO.1288/EC2/2019/SEIAA, DATED 4.2.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 13.2.2020 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NELLANAD.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03/03/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03/03/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR.