Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Metro Aggregates And Sand India Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 28 July, 2017

Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar

Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                              PRESENT:

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

            TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/18TH ASWINA, 1939

                                  WP(C).No. 24005 of 2017 (A)
                                 ------------------------------------------


PETITIONER(S) :
--------------------------

                     METRO AGGREGATES AND SAND INDIA PVT. LTD.,
                     32/2982 B, SAHRUDAYA BUILDINGS, PONNURUNNI,
                     VYTTILA.P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 019.
                     REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR JOSHY MATHEW.


                     BY SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
                          ADV. SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL

RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------

          1.         STATE OF KERALA,
                     REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
                     DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
                     GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

          2.         STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY,
                     PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 024.
                     REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

* ADDITIONAL R3 IMPLEADED

          3.         STATE LEVEL EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (SEAC),
                     STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY,
                     PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024,
                     REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

* ADDITIONAL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28.07.2017 IN
  I.A.NO. 11845 OF 2017.

                     BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU

           THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
           ON 10-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
           FOLLOWING:


Msd.

WP(C).No. 24005 of 2017 (A)
-----------------------------------------

                                            APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

EXHIBIT P1          TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF 25TH
                    MEETING OF THE SEAC HELD IN FEBRUARY 2014.

EXHIBIT P2          TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF 59TH
                    MEETING OF THE SEAC HELD IN JULY 2016.

EXHIBIT P3          TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED. 24.09.2016
                    SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4          TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
                    THE MINUTES OF 62ND MEETING OF THE SEAC HELD IN
                    SEPTEMBER 2016.

EXHIBIT P5          TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
                    THE MINUTES OF THE 63RD MEETING OF THE SEAC HELD IN
                    OCTOBER 2016.

EXHIBIT P6          TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION STATUS AS ON 18.07.2017 AS
                    DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

                                                NIL

                                                        //TRUE COPY//


                                                        P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.



                    P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

                --------------------------------------------

                    W.P.(C).No.24005 of 2017

       ---------------------------------------------------------------

          Dated this the 10th day of October, 2017


                          J U D G M E N T

The petitioner preferred an application seeking Environmental Clearance during 2013. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of respondents 2 and 3 in processing the said application despite lapse of considerable time.

2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the delay in completing the survey of the properties in the concerned village is the cause for the delay in processing the application preferred by the petitioner for environmental clearance. W.P.(c).No.24005 of 2017 : 2 :

3. In so far as the application has been preferred by the petitioner as early as in the year 2013, there is absolutely no justification for the delay in passing orders on the same.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to forward the application preferred by the petitioner as referred to in Ext.P6 status report with their recommendation based on the available revenue/survey records to the second respondent, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and directing the second respondent to take a decision on the said application in their first meeting thereafter.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE rsr