Kerala High Court
M/S. Chithara Crusher Metals vs The Director Of Mining And Geology on 16 December, 2019
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WP(C).No.34584 OF 2017(W)
PETITIONER/S:
M/S. CHITHARA CRUSHER METALS
MANCODE P.O, CHITHARA,KOLLAM 691 559
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNEER,G.AJAYAKUMAR
BY ADVS.
SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SR.)
SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN
SRI.LEO LUKOSE
SRI.PAUL JACOB (P)
SRI.RONY JOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY
DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004
2 DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE,
DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KOLLAM 691 013
3 STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY,
PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBEER SECRETARY
4 STATE LEVEL EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (SEAC)
STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY,
PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
BY ADVS.
SC FOR SEIAA AND SEAC M.P.SREEKRISHNAN;
GP S.KANNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 34584/17
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court with a specific contention that they are entitled to a deemed licence to run a stone quarry under the provisions of Clause 8 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.
2. The petitioner says that they have preferred an application for Environment Clearance before the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA for short) as early as on 2015, while they issued an order rejecting the same only on 13.09.2017, as is evidenced from Ext.P8, filed along with this writ petition. According to them, notwithstanding Ext.P8, they are entitled to run the quarry on the basis of a deemed Environment Clearance; but alternatively contends that, in any event of the matter, Ext.P8 is untenable in law, since the reasons WPC 34584/17 3 stated therein are not justified in rejecting an Environment Clearance.
3. In addition to the afore narrative, the learned Senior Counsel, Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas, instructed by Sri.Enoch David Samson Joel, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that one of the two reasons for the SEIAA in having rejected the Environment Clearance is that one of their employees had died in the mining pits. The learned Senior Counsel says that the unfortunate death of the employee was because he had gone to take a swim in one of the mining pits, but had unfortunately drowned, which, in any case, cannot be attributed to his client. He says that since this is the primary reason why the Environment Clearance has been rejected; contending that SEIAA was completely wrong in having done so-he offers, in an obvious attempt to obtain a quietus to the controversy between WPC 34584/17 4 the parties, that if the SEIAA is willing to reconsider his client's application for Environment Clearance, they are willing to give up the contention of a deemed Environment Clearance and await further orders from them. He says that his client is making this request also because the State Expert Appraisal Committee has already issued Exts.P1 and P3 recommendations, wherein, their application has been recommended to be granted Environment Clearance; and therefore, that if the SEIAA can reconsider the matter adverting to these recommendations, his client would not stand in the way of this Court adopting that course, so that a proper Environment Clearance can then be obtained by his client. The learned Senior Counsel says that if this Court is so inclined, this writ petition may be ordered on such terms.
4. Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Standing WPC 34584/17 5 Counsel for SEIAA, submits that, as is manifest from Ext.P8, apart from the reasons stated by the learned Senior Counsel above, there is also another compelling reason why the SEIAA has rejected the Environment Clearance, namely, that the depth of the earlier quarry was over 60 meters and that there is a legitimate suspicion that quarrying activities had been conducted in excess of the area granted in lease, thus forcing the Geologist to issue a Stop Memo. He says that, in any event of the matter, since the petitioner now wants only a reconsideration of their application, the SEIAA is willing to do so, provided they are left with liberty to complete such process, after following due procedure and offers that during this exercise, they are willing to advert to Exts.P1 and P3.
Taking note of the afore submissions and since I am also of the view that it will be WPC 34584/17 6 better to leave it to the SEIAA to take a final decision on the application of the petitioner, without them being construed to have obtained the Environment Clearance at this stage, I order this writ petition and direct the said Authority to reconsider the application of the petitioner for Environment Clearance, which had led to Ext.P8 order; and issue appropriate orders thereon, adverting to Exts.P1 and P3 recommendations of the SEIAA and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the authorized Officer of the petitioner also. I, however, grant liberty to the SEIAA to obtain any other germane and relevant inputs that they may require, during the afore exercise and to issue final orders on the application of the petitioner as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, since I have not WPC 34584/17 7 considered any of the dialectical contentions of the parties on its merits, the SEIAA will be at full liberty to take any appropriate decision that they may deem fit, after following all necessary and imperative procedure as per law.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
RR JUDGE
WPC 34584/17
8
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE ABSTRACT COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES
OF THE MINUTES OF 49TH MEETING OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT HELD IN DECEMBER 2015 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE ABSTRACT COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF 48TH MEETING OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT HELD ON 23-01-2016 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE ABSTRACT COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF 54TH MEETING OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT HELD ON 6TH AND 7TH OF APRIL 2016 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE ABSTRACT COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF 53RD MEETING OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT HELD ON 24-05-2016 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD 18-11-2016 FOR GRANT OF A QUARRYING LEASE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE ABSTRACT COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF 65TH MEETING OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT HELD ON 22-03-2017 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE ABSTRACT COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF 70TH MEETING OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT HELD ON 16-06-2017 EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 24-05-2017 SUBMITTED BY THE GEOLOGIST WAS OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 13-09-2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT