Kerala High Court
Abraham Skaria vs The State Of Kerala
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/12TH MAGHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 9543 of 2016 (P)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
ABRAHAM SKARIA, AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O. SKARIA, VELIIYATH HOUSE, KAYANAD KARA, MARADY P.O,
MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.P.M.JOSHI
SRI.K.J.GLADIS
SMT.SIJI K.PAUL
SMT.ELIZABETH KOSHY
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD 682 030
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
MUVATTUPUZHA 686 661
4. THE GEOLOGIST
MINING AND GEOLOGY DISTRICT OFFICE,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD P.O PIN 682 030
5. MARADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
MARADY P.O, PIN 686 662
6. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
RAMAMANGALAM POLICE STATION,
RAMAMANGALAM PIN 686 662
7. SAJI SEBASTIAN,AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O. M.P DEVASSY,MADACKAL HOUSE,
KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
PIN 683 562
8. THE VILLAGE OFFICER
MARADY VILLAGE, MARADY PIN 686 662
R7 BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RENIL ANTO
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 9543 of 2016 (P)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBITP1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
11-1-2016 IN O.SNO 355 OF 2012 BFORE THE MUNSIFF
COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11-1-2016 IN O.S NO
355 OF 2012 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE A COMPLAINT DATED 22-2-2016
BEFORE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22-2-2016 TO THE
6TH RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT R7(a): TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE DATED 22.02.2011 VALID
UPTO 01.12.2020 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND THE 7TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R7(b): TRUE COPY OF THE D & O LICENSE DATED 01.04.2016 ISSUED BY
THE MARADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH FOR THE YEAR 2016-2017 TO OPERATE THE QUARRY
COVERED VIDE EXHIBIT R7(a).
EXHIBIT R7(c): TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE BY
THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO
OPERATE THE QUARRY COVERED BY EXHIBIT R7(a) ON 23.06.2016 VALID UPTO
31.03.2016.
EXHIBIT R7(d): TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT VARIATION ORDER DATED
07.01.2016 HAVING VALIDITY UPTO 30.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE
POLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R7(e): TRUE COPY OF THE FORM LE-3 LICENSE ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY
CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES 19.05.2009 RENEWED AND EXTENDED UPTO
31.03.2018
EXHIBIT R7(f): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.10.2012 PASSED BY
THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C)NO.20954 OF 2012
EXHIBIT R7(g): TRUE COPY OF A.S.NO.25 OF 2016 PENDING ON THE FILES OF
THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
sm
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.9543 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a resident of Kayanad in ward No.13 of the 5th respondent Grama Panchayath. In the writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged illegal quarrying operation carried on by the 7th respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that, noticing that the quarrying activities carried on by the 7th respondent were carried out without any regard for the environment, he had approached the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha through O.S.No.355 of 2012, in which a judgment and decree came to be passed, injuncting the 7th respondent from carrying on quarrying operations without valid licenses and consents from the relevant statutory authorities or without complying with the provisions of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2015. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that, despite Exts.P1 and P2 decree and judgment respectively, of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha, the 7th respondent is continuing with the quarrying operations, without getting a prior environmental clearance as is contemplated under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006. The prayer in the writ petition is essentially for W.P.(c).No.9543 of 2016 : 2 : a direction to the respondents 2, 4 and 6 to exercise their powers, so as to the prevent the 7th respondent from carrying on the quarrying activities in his premises.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 7th respondent. Therein he produces as Exts.R7(a) to R7(e), copies of the quarrying lease dated 22.02.2011 issued in his favour, which is valid up to 01.12.2020, D&O License issued by the Maradi Grama Panchayath to operate the quarry, Consent to operate issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, which is valid till 31.03.2016 and subsequently renewed to have a validity till 30.06.2018, and a copy of the Form LE-3 license, issued by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, which is valid till 31.03.2018. The 7th respondent relies on the said documents to indicate that the quarrying operations, that are being carried on by him, are in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and under the supervision of the applicable statutory authorities. As regards the requirement of a prior environmental clearance, it is pointed out that, by virtue of the decisions of this Court in All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala [2015 (2) KLT 78] and Nature Lovers Forum v. State of Kerala [2016 (1) KLT 75], since the quarrying lease in favour of the petitioner was issued on 22.02.2011, prior to W.P.(c).No.9543 of 2016 : 3 : 18.05.2012, the date of the Notification of the Ministry of Environment and Forest, pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Hariyana [(2012) 4 SCC 629], the requirement of an environmental clearance would arise in his case only when the quarrying lease comes up for renewal on 02.12.2020. It is therefore stated that, as of today, the activities of the 7th respondent have been carried out in strict compliance with all the laws and regulations and the apprehensions of the petitioner in the writ petition are therefore wholly unfounded.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 7th respondent and the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents.
4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I am of the view that, inasmuch as the 7th respondent is seen operating his quarry in due compliance with all the statutory provisions regulating the quarrying activities, and the requirement of an environmental clearance certificate would arise only when his quarrying lease comes up for renewal in 2020, the prayers sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted at this stage. I make it clear, however, that nothing in this W.P.(c).No.9543 of 2016 : 4 : judgment shall prevent the statutory authorities, who are entrusted with the task of regulating the quarrying operations of the 7th respondent, from ensuring that the quarrying operations so carried out by the 7th respondent are strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions, as also the conditions of the quarrying lease granted to him, and with due regard to the environment. With these observations, the writ petition, in its challenge against the quarrying operations conducted by the 7th respondent, is otherwise dismissed.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sm/