Kerala High Court
T.P.Abdul Basheer vs The Cherupuzha Grama Panchayat on 16 September, 2021
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021/25TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 9356 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
T.P.ABDUL BASHEER, AGED 64 YEARS,
S/O. EBRAHIMKUTTY, THANNICHAL
PUTHENPURAYIL, UZHICHI, PERINGOME P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CHERUPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHERUPUZHA P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 511,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE SECRETARY, CHERUPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
CHERUPUZHA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 511.
3 P. KUNHIKRISHNAN, S/O. KANNAN NAIR,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, PANAYAMTHATTA HOUSE,
CHOORAPADAVU, PRAPOYIL P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 511.
ADDL.4 M.M.THOMAS, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH (LATE),
DIRECTOR, ROX AGGREGATES PVT.LTD.,
POTTANKAL HOUSE, THONDIYIL, KANNUR,
NOW RESIDING AT MADATHINA MATTATHIL HOUSE,
KANNAVAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.
[ADDITIONAL R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
16.09.2021 IN I.A.NO.1/2021]
R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.ABHILASH
R1-R2 BY ADV.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
R3 - BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN
R4 BY ADV. SRIMM.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
R4 BY ADV.SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA
R4 BY ADV.SRI. BALU TOM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.9356/2021
:2 :
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 16th day of September, 2021 The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the illegal rejection of his application for renewal of the Trade Licence for functioning the Quarry and the Crusher Unit, by respondents 1 and 2.
2. The petitioner is owner of 6.35 Acres of land in Re-Survey No.431 of Vayakkara Village of Payyannur Taluk. The petitioner's brother is holding 9.90 Acres of land in the same Survey number, which is lying contiguously. The petitioner wanted to conduct a quarry in the said land. The Geologist approved Mining Plan as per Ext.P1. By Ext.P2, the Director of Mining and Geology issued Mining Lease. The period of Quarrying lease is up to 23.01.2030. The Geologist has issued Movement Permit. The Additional District Magistrate issued Ext.P3 Explosives Licence. The District WP(C) No.9356/2021 :3 : Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) issued Ext.P4 Environmental Clearance (EC). The Pollution Control Board (PCB) issued Ext.P5 Integrated Consent.
3. The petitioner has also started a stone Crusher Unit. The Geologist has granted registration to the unit. The PCB has granted Ext.P6 Consent to the Crusher Unit. The 2 nd respondent-Secretary to the Panchayat has granted Ext.P7 Licence to the Crusher Unit. The 1 st respondent-Panchayat has considered the application filed under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 for grant of permission to establish the quarry. The Panchayat decided to grant permission and the Secretary issued Ext.P8 Licence dated 18.01.2019. The validity of Ext.P8 should statutorily be for 5 years. But, in Ext.P8, the licence period was recorded as up to 31.03.2019 only. The petitioner submitted application for renewal of Ext.P8 on 26.02.2019.
4. Respondents 1 and 2 did not communicate any orders within 30 days and hence the petitioner had Deemed Licence renewal. The petitioner therefore applied for licence WP(C) No.9356/2021 :4 : in physical form, which was not readily issued. When the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.13784/2019, the respondents issued a licence dated 01.07.2019, with validity up to 31.03.2020. Before the expiry of the said period, on 27.02.2020, the petitioner applied for renewal of licences of quarry and crusher unit. No action was taken thereon within 30 days and the petitioner should be treated as having Deemed Licence. In order to obtain Movement Permit from Geology Department, the petitioner applied for Licence in paper form, which was not granted.
5. The petitioner hence filed W.P.(C) No.11736/2020. By Ext.P9 judgment, this Court directed the Secretary to take up the applications submitted by the petitioner and pass orders. Directions in Ext.P9 were not complied with and hence the petitioner filed Contempt of Court Case No.960/2020. Thereupon, the respondents filed R.P. No.482/2020. On the basis of an undertaking given by the respondents, the Contempt of Court Case was closed and the Review Petition was dismissed. Thereafter, Ext.P12 licence WP(C) No.9356/2021 :5 : dated 20.08.2020 was issued, the validity of which was extended up to 31.03.2021.
6. The petitioner states that the 3rd respondent filed W.P.(C) No.11133/2020 challenging the EC issued by the DEIAA and the Quarrying Lease issued by the Director of Mining and Geology and also the Movement Permit issued by the District Geologist. This Court passed an interim order on 09.06.2020, ordering status quo. Influenced by the said interim order, the 2nd respondent-Secretary issued Ext.P13 Stop Memo against quarrying operations by petitioner, on 07.10.2020. The petitioner submits that the said Ext.P13 Stop Memo is illegal. The petitioner hence filed W.P.(C) No.21536/2020. This Court stayed the operation of Ext.P13 Stop Memo on 20.10.2020. W.P.(C) Nos.11133/2020 and 21536/2020 were heard together. This Court quashed Ext.P13 Stop Memo and dismissed WP(C) No.11133/2020 as per Ext.P14 common judgment.
7. The petitioner thereafter made application for renewal of Ext.P12 Quarry Licence and Ext.P7 Crusher Unit WP(C) No.9356/2021 :6 : licence, as per Exts.P15 and P16. The 2 nd respondent has not considered the renewal application. The petitioner therefore filed W.P.(C) No.7190/2021. On 30.03.2021, the Court was informed that the applications for renewal of Licences are rejected by the 2nd respondent on the basis of a resolution passed by the 1st respondent-Panchayat. The petitioner was issued with Ext.P18 letter dated 24.03.2021 communicating the decision.
8. The petitioner argued that Ext.P18 is per se illegal. Ext.P18 states that the Panchayat Committee held on 14.01.2021 constituted a Sub Committee and on the basis of the report of the Sub Committee, it was decided to inform various Departments which issued permits and clearances for the quarry. By resolutions dated 22.02.2021 and 19.03.2021, the Panchayat Committee resolved not to renew the licence of the quarry. The petitioner was informed that renewal of licence for the year 2021-'22 can be considered only on getting directions from the Government and the Departments concerned.
WP(C) No.9356/2021:7 :
9. The petitioner urged that as per Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and Rule 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Factories, Trades, Entrepreneurship Activities and Other Services) Rules, 1996, the 2nd respondent is the licensing authority and the Grama Panchayat has no jurisdiction or authority to consider application for licence or to decide not to renew the licence. The 2nd respondent has abdicated his powers.
10. The 1st respondent-Panchayat defended the writ petition. According to the 1st respondent, the functioning of the Quarry was dangerous to the life of nearby residents. On receiving complaints, the 1st respondent decided to form a Sub-Committee to inquire into the complaints. The Sub-Committee found that quarrying was being done in a dangerous manner, storage of water was detected in the premises and the possibility of erupting the water storage could not be ruled out. The Sub-Committee examined the damages caused to the nearby houses. The quarry was proximate to the forest area. Transportation of granite was in WP(C) No.9356/2021 :8 : contravention of the terms of the licence. In such circumstances, the 2nd respondent-Secretary sent reports to various Departments. The Grama Sabha of 11 th Ward had passed a Resolution against the functioning of the Quarry. Therefore, the Panchayat on 22.02.2021 decided against the renewal of the licence issued to the petitioner.
11. The contesting 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit. The 3rd respondent stated that the project is situated in an ecologically sensitive area. The petitioner obtained permits from statutory authorities furnishing incorrect information and suppressing material facts. Those were fraudulently obtained and the fraud vitiates everything. Ext.P4 Environmental Clearance is not a valid document since it was obtained from the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA). The National Green Tribunal has held that the District Authorities are incompetent to issue certificates and the certificate so issued is directly against the judgment in Deepak Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others [(2012) 4 SCC 629].
WP(C) No.9356/2021:9 :
12. Ext.R3(e) Field Excursion Guide for the National Workshop on Land Disturbances due to Soil Piping in the Western Ghats elaborately considered the ecological conditions of the Western Ghats. Clause 3 of the Report speaks about 'Kottathalachimala' where the Quarry is situated. The Guide states that Cherupuzha where Kottathalachimala is situated can be considered as the type area of soil piping in Kerala. It is an ecologically fragile area as per Kasturi Rangan Report.
13. The 3rd respondent further alleged that due to the activities of the crusher units and the vibration from the machines used by the petitioner, landsliding is a regular phenomena. The materials furnished by the petitioner for pre-feasibility report are incorrect. The District Level Committee has not considered material factors and environmental impact. The grounds urged by the petitioner are without legal force and the writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed, contended the 3rd respondent. WP(C) No.9356/2021 : 10 :
14. Heard the learned Senior Counsel assisted by the counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
15. The petitioner has started the quarrying operations and crusher unit after obtaining EC and all other required statutory Licences, Permits and Consent, including licences from the Panchayat authorities. This Court has held in the judgment in Muhammed Ismail Makki and another v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (4) KLT 450] that the Panchayats cannot unilaterally issue an order stopping legal activities, even when it is conceded that the petitioners have all the necessary licences. In this case, the Panchayat has interdicted the functioning of the Quarry and Crusher unit, by not renewing the respective licences.
16. A Full Bench of this Court has held in Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala [2019 (3) KLT 987 (FB)] that after the amendment brought about to Rule 12(3)(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Factories, Trades, WP(C) No.9356/2021 : 11 : Entrepreneurship Activities and Other Services) Rules, 1996, the power vested on the Village Panchayat to refuse the permission based on the opinion that the establishment is objectionable by reason of high density of population in the neighbourhood or that it is likely to cause nuisance, has been taken away by the Legislature. If the Panchayat feels that the establishment is objectionable, the Secretary shall obtain expert opinion of the Departments concerned and even in such cases the Panchayat shall accord permission subject to such conditions.
17. The 3rd respondent put forth an argument that the petitioner does not possess a licence under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and that the licences issued to the petitioner are under Section 232. Section 232 provides that the Village Panchayat may notify that no place in the Panchayat area shall be used for any of the purposes specified in the Rules made in this behalf being purposes which in the opinion of Government, are likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life or health or property, without a WP(C) No.9356/2021 : 12 : licence issued by the Secretary and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such licence. Rule 233 provides that no person shall, without the permission of the Village Panchayat and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such permission:
(a) construct or establish any factory, workshop or workplace in which it is proposed to employ steam power, water power or other mechanical power, or electrical power; or
(b) install in any premises any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by any power as aforesaid, not being machinery or manufacturing plan exempted by the provisions of this Act or the Rules made thereunder.
18. The learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent, relying on the judgment of this Court in Kadaplamattom Grama Panchayat v. Johny Roy [2013 (3) KLT 1053] argued that when a composite application is submitted by a person under Sections 232 and 233, a decision to grant permission or licence under Section 233 is to be taken by the Village Panchayat.
WP(C) No.9356/2021: 13 :
19. Both Ext.P8 Licence issued to the petitioner's quarry and Ext.P7 Licence issued to the Crusher Unit refer to Section 232 as well as Section 233. There is no reason therefore to believe that the petitioner does not hold Section 233 licence. The argument is that Section 233 licence can be issued by the Secretary only on the basis of a decision of the Panchayat and the Panchayat has not taken any decision to permit the petitioner to start a quarry. In this regard, it may be noted that a licence under Section 233 is the licence to establish a Factory, Trade, Entrepreneurship, etc. or for installation of machinery and is a one time affair, as held by this Court in Soorya Retreats and Holidays India Pvt. Ltd. v. Elamadu Grama Panchayat [2016 (3) KLT 346] and the renewal is to be granted under Section 232. When the petitioner's units were granted renewal of licences from time to time, it cannot be heard to contend that no Consent to Establish was granted to the petitioner, under Section 233.
20. The learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat contended that the non-renewal of the licences granted to the WP(C) No.9356/2021 : 14 : petitioner is justifiable under Section 239 of the Act, 1994. Section 239 reads as follows:
"239. Power of Panchayat for carrying out their functions - (1) A Panchayat shall exercise all the powers conferred on, and perform all the functions entrusted to that Panchayat by or under this Act or any other law and shall also exercise such other powers and perform such other functions as may be conferred on or entrusted to it by the Government for carrying out the provisions of this Act.
(2) A Panchayat shall have power to do all acts necessary for and incidental to, carrying out the functions entrusted or delegated to it.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, a village panchayat shall have power, -
(a) to require by notice, the owner or occupier of any land or building which is a nuisance to the neighbourhood on account of -
(i) its insanitary conditions; or
(ii) the collection of any drainage, filth or stagnant water thereon; or
(iii) the existence of will or noxious vegetation thereon; or
(iv) the presence of poisonous reptiles or other harmful animals or insect.
(b) to take such action as it deems necessary to abate the nuisance within a reasonable period to be specified in such notice;
(c) to prohibit the use of the water of any stream, well, pond or any other excavation believed to be dangerous to public health; and
(d) to regulate or prohibit the watering of cattle or bathing or washing in any stream, well, pond or other excavation reserved for drinking water".WP(C) No.9356/2021 : 15 :
21. It is true that Section 239 gives power to Panchayats to exercise all the powers conferred on, and perform all the functions entrusted to the Panchayats by or under this Act or any other law. But, exercise of such powers are circumscribed by the Rules made under the Act. When the Panchayat has issued licences to the petitioner to establish quarry and crusher unit and when such licences were renewed from time to time, the Panchayat cannot, solely based on public complaints, refuse to renew the licences.
22. The reason projected by the Panchayat is the adverse environmental impact and pollution. The petitioner has been issued EC for conducting quarrying operations. The Pollution Control Board has issued Consent to Establish. When competent statutory bodies having expertise in the field of environmental protection and pollution have granted permission based on requisite studies, the Panchayat authorities cannot, without any reliable materials, stop functioning of the units based on public complaints alone. The Panchayats also cannot take a stand that they have referred WP(C) No.9356/2021 : 16 : the matter to authorities/Departments (who have already granted clearances to the units) and till their opinion is obtained afresh, the licences cannot be renewed.
23. The 1st respondent has also relied on the Resolution passed by a Grama Sabha of the Panchayat against renewal of licences. This Court has held in the judgment in Abdulla M.P. and others v. Trippangottur Grama Panchayat and others [2021 (4) KHC 550] that any decision of Grama Sabhas cannot affect powers and functions of statutory licensing authorities. Therefore, the Resolution passed by a Grama Sabha by itself cannot be put forth as a reason to decline renewal of licence.
24. The learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent contended that the ECs issued by the DEIAAs are no more valid in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the National Green Tribunal. This Court has held in the judgment in WP(C) No.1104/2021 that the Environmental Clearance Certificates issued by the DEIAA prior to the judgment of the National Green Tribunal order are valid as WP(C) No.9356/2021 : 17 : long as they are not subjected to successful challenge.
25. The learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent urged that the judgment in W.P.(C) No.1104/2021 requires reconsideration in view of the judgment of this Court in Varghese K.T. and others v. State of Kerala and others [2021 (4) KLT 1]. In the said judgment, this Court, in paragraph 27 observed that leases of minor minerals, including their renewal for an area of less than 5 Hectares be granted by the State/Union Territories only after getting EC. It may be noted that this Court in All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala [2015 (2) KLT 78] held that the existing leases do not require an EC certificate during the period of their validity. This Court has not nullified any EC certificates already issued, in the said judgment in Varghese K.T. (supra). Therefore, the ratio laid down by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1104/2021, need not be doubted.
For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered view that Ext.P18 communication cannot be legally sustained. Ext.P18 is therefore set aside. Consequently, WP(C) No.9356/2021 : 18 : there will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to take up Ext.P15 and Ext.P16 applications of the petitioner and renew the licences issued to the Quarry and the Crusher Unit notwithstanding the decisions of the Panchayat Committee taken on 22.02.2021 and 19.03.2021, within a period of eight weeks.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/14.09.2021 WP(C) No.9356/2021 : 19 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9356/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.09.2016 OF THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, KANNUR.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2018 GRANTING QUARRYING LEASE BY THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DC.KNR/1063/2020-D4 DATED 20.08.2020 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KANNUR.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
CLEARANCE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, KANNUR ON 22.05.2017 HAVING VALIDITY UPTO 21.05.2022.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO
OPERATE - RENEWAL ISSUED BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ON 04.08.2020.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO
OPERATE -RENEWAL ISSUED BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ON 27.02.2021 TO MAJIDA STONE CRUSHER.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 01.04.2020 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR STONE CRUSHER UNIT.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 18.01.2019 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR CONDUCTING QUARRY.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.06.2020 IN WP(C) NO.11736 OF 2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2020 IN R.P.NO.482 OF 2020.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.09.2020 IN CONTEMPT CASE NO.960/2020 IN WP(C) NO.11736/2020.
WP(C) No.9356/2021: 20 : EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 20.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE QUARRY.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 19.11.2020 IN WP(C) NO.11133/2020 AND WP(C) NO.21536/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT ON 27.02.2021 FOR THE RENEWAL OF LICENSE OF THE QUARRY.
EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT ON 27.02.2021 FOR THE RENEWAL OF LICENSE OF THE CRUSHER UNIT.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPIES OF THE COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P15 AND P16 APPLICATIONS.
EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.03.2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH LEGIBLE COPY.
EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.06.2021 WITH NO.RC3/125/2021/LSGD ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (RC) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.03.2021 WITH NO.A(5)1531/2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.121030100381 DATED 28.06.2021 ISSUED FOR LICENCE FEE FOR QUARRY EXHIBIT P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.121030100379 DATED 28.06.2021 ISSUED FOR LICENCE FEE FOR CRUSHER UNIT.
WP(C) No.9356/2021: 21 : RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS Exhibit R1(1) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31/12/2020 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND OTHERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R1(2) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31/12/2020 SUBMITTED BY ONE MR. JOSHI AND OTHERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R1(3) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 14/01/2021 NO. 14/2021 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit R1(4) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27/02/2021 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
Exhibit R1(5) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27/02/2021 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO GEOLOGIST.
Exhibit R1(6) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27/02/2021 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
Exhibit R1(7) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27/02/2021 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ADM.
Exhibit R1(8) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE GRAMASABHA OF 11TH WARD OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH.
Exhibit R1(9) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.7/2021 DATED 22/02/2021 OF TYHE BOARD OF CHERUPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
Exhibit R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI DATED 13/09/2018 IN OA NO.
186/2016.
Exhibit R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/12/2018 IN EA NO. 55/2018 IN OA NO. 520/2016 OF THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI.
Exhibit R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 12/12/2018, ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
Exhibit R3(D) TRUE COPY OF THE APPENDIX XI TO THE NOTIFICATION DATED 15/01/2016.
WP(C) No.9356/2021: 22 : Exhibit R3(E) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF FIELD EXCURSION GUIDE FOR THE NATIONAL WORKSHOP ON LAND DISTURBANCE DUE TO SOIL PIPING IN THE WESTERN GHATS.
Exhibit R3(F) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PRE-
FEASIBILITY REPORT IN RESPECT OF THE AREA.
Exhibit R3(G) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN OS NO.108/2019 DATED 19/06/2019 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR.
Exhibit R3(H) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN OS NO. 80/2019 DATED 18/06/2019 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR.
Exhibit R3(I) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM IM
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE.