Kerala High Court
Suo Motu vs State Of Kerala on 4 March, 2022
Author: Shaji P. Chaly
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 41341 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
SUO MOTU
[WPC 41341/2017 (S) CONVERTED AS SUO MOTU AS PER ORDER
DATED 05/01/2022 IN WPC]
BY ADV SUO MOTU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FISHERIES AND PORT
DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT,
FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003.
3 THE KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM
P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
4 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,RUBCO HOUSE, 6TH
FLOOR, SOUTH BAZAR,CIVIL STATION, KANNUR - 670 002.
5 (THE DIRECTOR OF PORTS, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PORTS,
VALIYATHURA, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 008.)
REPLACED WITH KERALA STATE MARITIME BOARD
REGIONAL OFFICE, VALIYATHURA
VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 008
[RESPONDENT NO. 5 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED IN PLACE OF EARLIER
RESPONDENT NO.5 AS PER ORDER DATED 20.07.2021]
W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 :2:
6 THE PORT CONSERVATOR
PORT OFFICE, AZHEEKKAL PORT,KANNUR - 670 009.
7 MATTOOL GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
8 PAPPINISSERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
9 AZHIKODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
10 VALAPATANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
11 PRESIDENT, PAPPINISSERY KETTIDA NIRMANA THOZHILALI KSHEMA
SAHAKARANA SANGAM LTD. NO.C-1939.
12 NIYAS. M., S/O.MUSSAN KUTTY
MARAYANKANDI HOUSE,
KOLACHERY, PATTAYAM, KANNUR-670 601,
13 MOHANAN T.V
T.V. HOUSE, MATTOOL NORTH P.O
14 K.P. JAFFAR
KARAKKAD, PUTHIYAPURAYIL, MANKADAVU.
15 FAROOQ P.P.
HIRA, P.O. THANA, NEAR MANIKKAKAVU.
16 ANEESH KUMAR. P.
SREEPURAM, MOONU NIRATH, P.O. AZHIKODE.
17 SAJITH K.P.
KAKKANPARAMBATH, MOONU NIRATH, P.O. AZHIKODE.
18 JAFFAR K.P.
S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, KARAKKAT PUTHIYAPURAYIL,
P.O. AAROLI, PAPPINISSERI.
19 MUHAMMAD SHAHJAHAN V.N.
S/O.AMIR,
VATTAKANDI NADUVILE PURAYIL, P.O. PAPPINISSERI.
20 ANAS T.P.
S/O. AMIR ALI. C.T., M.T. HOUSE,
K KANNAPURAM P.O., CHERUKUNNU.
W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 :3:
[ADDL. R7 TO R20 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05/01/2022 IN
WPC.]
BY ADVS.
R7 BY SRI. BRIJESH MOHAN
P.M.PAREETH
R10 BY SRI. MUHAMMED SHAFI M
R11, R14, R16 TO R20 BY SRI. P.U.SHAILAJAN
R3 BY SRI.M.P.PRAKASH, SC, KCZMA
K.P.SUDHEER
NIDHEESH T.P
R.RAJPRADEEP
SRI. JOBY JOSE KONDODY, AMICUS CURIAE
R8 & R9 BY SRI. M.P. PRASANTH, SC
R1 & R6 BY SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R4 BY SRI. T. NAVEEN, SC
R5 BY SRI. K.P. SUDHEER
R5 BY SRI. ANJALI MENON
R3 BY SRI. M.P. PRAKASH, SC
R2 BY SRI. S. BIJU, CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.03.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 :4:
Dated this the 4th day of March, 2022.
JUDGMENT
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
The petitioner, formerly, a member of Mattoor Grama Panchayat in Kannur District and the Development Standing Committee Member of the Panchayat during the period 2004-2009, has filed this Public Interest Litigation, seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1, 5 and 6 namely State of Kerala, represented by its Secretary, Fisheries and Port Department; Kerala State Maritime Board; and the Port Conservator, Port Office, Azheekal Port, Kannur, not to carry out sand mining activity in Valapattanam river in Azheekal Port and its upstream under the pretext of channel clearing, without obtaining necessary consent from the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, the third respondent; to declare that respondents 1, 5 and 6 are conducting sand mining activity in Valapattanam river in Azheekal Port and its upstream in the pretext of channel clearing without obtaining necessary consent from the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, the third respondent; to declare that respondent Nos. 1, 5 and 6 conducting sand mining activity in Valapattanam river under the pretext of channel clearing is covered vide EIA Notification, 2006 issued by the second respondent and W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 :5: therefore environmental clearance under the said notification is mandatory for carrying out such activities; to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1, 5 and 6 to establish sand purification unit similar to that of the applicant in Ext. P6 application submitted for consent, to the Member Secretary, Kerala State Pollution Control Board-- 4th respondent, if they intend to purify and sell sand mined from Azheekal Port; and for a further direction to the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to prohibit all sand purification unit seen in Ext. P7 photographs established by the side of Valapattanam river causing pollution to the potable wells in the locality.
2. Since the Valapattanam river was passing through various Grama Panchayats and contracts were given by the Panchayats to various contractors for dealing with the sand dredged at the behest of the Kerala State Maritime Board, the Panchayats as well as the Contractors were impleaded as additional respondent Nos. 7 to 20 as per the order dated 05.01.2022 in the writ petition.
3. The basic contention advanced by the petitioner is that the Kerala State Maritime Board and the Port Conservator are conducting sand mining in Valapattanam river under the pretext of channel clearing of Azheekal Port in Kannur District by dredging. It is also submitted that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are carrying out sand mining activities in the upstream of Valapattanam river and by the side of W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 :6: famous mangroves of Kannur District causing severe ecological imbalances as well as nuisance to the people in the locality.
4. The further contention of the writ petitioner is that the sand mined from Valapattanam river is washed in the saline water taken from the river and the waste water is intruded into the potable wells in the locality making the entire wells in the area saline and useless. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the people in the locality is finding it difficult to obtain potable drinking water due to the illegal sand purification unit erected in and around the locality by various private entrepreneurs for and on behalf of the Kerala Maritime Board and the Port Conservator, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 respectively.
5. The petitioner has produced Exts.P7 series of photographs to establish that the cleaning activities are taking place by the side of the river and waste and sludge are being put back to the river, thereby causing severe pollution. Petitioner has also produced the Ext.P8 series of photographs to bring to the notice of this Court the thick mangroves by the side of the Valapattanam river. That apart, the petitioner, placing reliance upon Ext. P9 office memorandum dated 08.11.2011 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, in regard to the removal of sand in the Coastal Regulation Zone area of rivers/estuaries by manual methods by traditional communities, submitted that the Ministry has stipulated various W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 :7: mandatory conditions, as per which the removal of sand bar by traditional coastal communities can only be done manually, and the said activity shall be considered by the District Collector and a seven- member committee consisting of concerned officials as also at least one representative of each from a scientific or technical institute, the local communities, like fisher folk and the local civil society.
6. It is pointed out that the said office memorandum was forwarded to the Chairperson of the Coastal Zone Management Authority, Thiruvananthapuram and therefore, without securing adequate clearance in accordance with the EIA notification in force and also consent from the Pollution Control Board, the activity of dredging and washing the sand cannot be done by the Kerala State Maritime Board.
7. The Kerala State Maritime Board has filed a detailed counter affidavit basically contending that the manual dredging in ports is an activity being carried out since the British era for clearing navigation channels; and that ban on the mining of river sand and other restrictions in the State have escalated the selling price of dredged material persuaded the administrators of co-operative societies to involve in unscrupulous and illicit activities, which resulted in series of litigations between the co-operative societies to fetch a slot in dredging operations. Other facts and figures in respect of the same W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 :8: are also given, which, in our considered opinion, are not necessary to adjudicate the issues raised in the writ petition.
8. Anyhow, pursuant to the judgment of this Court in W.A. No. 1855 of 2016 dated 03.11.2016, a new Manual Dredging Policy was framed by the Government of Kerala, after a detailed scrutiny of all connected events, reports and matters with the sole objective of conducting the manual dredging in a transparent manner, ensuring reasonable wages to the workers and to make available good quality sand in the market at a reasonable price; and as well for clearing channel for navigation without incurring any expenditure to the State Government.
9. The State Government has taken a new policy decision on manual dredging in the channels and entrusted the same to the Local Self Government Department/Institutions instead of societies as per G.O.(Ms.) No. 26/2016 dated 17.08.2016. As per the new Manual Dredging Policy of the Government, the Local Self Government Institutions within the port limits are entrusted to perform the manual dredging using traditional workers and the workers are registered with the Local Self Government Institutions and paid daily wages at the rate fixed by the Government. It is also pointed out that the dredged material will be made available to the common man through an online booking system and the sale of dredged material at the kadavu is fully W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 :9: managed by the Port Department in a transparent manner.
10. It is also the case of the Kerala State Maritime Board that they are discharging their duties with the utmost dedication and sincerity and the allegations made in the writ petition that they are indulging in illegal sand mining cannot be sustained. According to the Kerala State Maritime Board, Ext. P9 office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, is not applicable in a mining activity under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, since the dredging is not performed in ports under the Indian Ports Act, 1908. It is also stated that if at all any consent is required from the Pollution Control Board, it is for the Local Self Government Institutions or the contractors to file suitable applications and secure the same from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. Therefore, according to the said respondent, the writ petition has no basis and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. The coastal Zone Management Authority has filed a detailed counter affidavit submitting as follows:
'3. It is submitted that pursuant to the decision taken at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm in 1972, the Parliament in order to provide provisions for the protection and improvement and for connected matters enacted the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (the Act for brevity). It is W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 : 10 : further submitted that Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act provide that the Central Government shall have power to take all such measures as it deems necessary and expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution, including to impose restrictions of areas in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations or processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards.
4. It is submitted that in exercise of the powers under the Act, the Government of India as per Notification S.O 114(E) dated 19.02.1991 published in the Gazette of India dated 20.02.1991 imposed prohibitions/restrictions on the location of an industry or on the carrying on or of processes and operations on the coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers and back waters which are influenced by tidal action and certain restrictions were imposed on the setting up and expansion of industries, operations, processes, etc., in the said Coastal Regulation Zone (referred to hereinafter as CRZ 1991 for brevity). On the basis of the above CRZ 1991 Notification, Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMP for short) were prepared demarcating the High Tide Line (HTL for short) and were approved in 1996.
5. It is submitted that Government of India in supersession of CRZ 1991 Notification declared certain areas as Coastal Regulation Zone and imposed certain restrictions on the setting up and expansions, operations or processes and the like in CRZ, by Notification S.O 19 (E) dated 06.01.2011 (hereinafter rererred to as the CRZ 2011 for brevity). Coastal Zone Management Plans W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 : 11 : (CZMPs) under CRZ 2011 were prepared and approved by the Government of India on 28.02.2019.
6. It is submitted that as per Para 2 (vii) of CRZ 1991, land reclamation, bunding or disturbing natural course of Sea required for maintenance or clearing of waterways, channels and ports or for prevention of sand bars or for tidal regulators, storm water drains or for structures for prevention of salinity ingress and sweet water recharge, is an exempted activity.
7. It is submitted that, however as per Para 3 (iv) (c) of CRZ 2011, land reclamation, bunding or disturbing natural course of sea water required for maintenance or clearing of waterways, channels and ports can be carried out only after carrying out Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA for short) studies.
8.It is submitted that to the knowledge of this respondent, no EIA studies have been carried out for maintenance or clearing of waterways, channels and ports in Azheekal Port area. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority has not received any application seeking CRZ clearance for the said activity.'
12. The sum and substance of the contention advanced by the Coastal Zone Management Authority is that as per the CRZ Notification, 2011 dated 06.01.2011, the Coastal Zone Management Plan was prepared and approved by the Government of India on 28.02.2019. It is also stated that as per Para 2(viii) of CRZ 1991 Notification, every land reclamation, bunding or disturbing natural W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 : 12 : course of sea water required for maintenance or clearing of waterways, channels and ports or for prevention of sand bars or for tidal regulators, storm water drains or for structures for prevention of salinity ingress and sweet water recharge, was an exempted activity.
13. However, as per Para 3(iv)(c) of CRZ 2011 Notification, the aforementioned activities can be carried out only after conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Studies. Therefore, it is pointed out that in the instant case, no EIA study has been carried out for maintenance or clearing of waterways, channels and ports in Azheekal Port area, and for the said purpose, the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority has not received any application.
14. The Kerala State Maritime Board has also filed a statement along with Annexure R5 (b) order dated 08.08.2013 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in M.A. No. 803 of 2013 in O.A.No. 286 of 2013, from where it can be gathered that the issue in respect of mining activities carried out in the ports channel under Kasargod, Manjeswaram and Cheruvathoor Ports in Kasargod District and Ponnani Port channel were considered. The State of Kerala is stated to have submitted in that case, that a survey would be conducted before issuing execution order or final acceptance of the tender and that the survey would determine the extent and the manner in which the dredging should be carried out while entirely W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 : 13 : protecting the environmental interests. Accordingly, applications were disposed of directing the State as well as the other authorities to ensure that no excessive dredging leading to damage to the environment or ecology of that area is carried out and also to protect the plants, mangroves etc.
15. Additional respondent Nos. 7, 9 and 10 namely Mattool Grama Panchayat, Azhikode Grama Panchayat and Valapattanam Grama Panchayat respectively, have filed separate counter affidavits basically explaining the nature of the manual dredging activities taking place within the panchayat area and the manner in which the auction is being conducted etc. It is also submitted that since the manual dredging activities are exempted by the CRZ notification, no permission is required from the third respondent authority for manual dredging.
16. That apart, it is pointed out that the selling of river sand is a major source of income to the Grama Panchayat and so also, it is helpful to the common man and therefore, if any interference is made as are sought for in the writ petition, it would seriously affect the developmental activities of the panchayats, and the construction activities within the limits of the Panchayats would come to a standstill abruptly. It is also submitted that the contract was being awarded for sand dredging and sale of sand from the year 2017-2018 onwards and W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 : 14 : up to the ensuing year 2021-2022. The State Pollution Control Board has filed a report basically stating that consent of the Board is required for the sand washing and cleaning establishments .
17. Even though the writ petition was filed by a Public Interest Litigant, later it was informed that due to certain mental disabilities, the petitioner is not in a position to continue with the writ petition and thereupon, taking into account the public interest involved in the matter, we have converted the writ petition as a suo motu writ petition. Accordingly, we have heard Sri. Joby Jose Kondody, who was appearing for the petitioner as an Amicus Curiae, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Tek Chand for the State and its officials, learned Central Government Counsel Sri. S. Biju, learned Standing Counsel for the Coastal Zone Management Authority Sri. M.P. Prakash, Sri. K.P. Sudheer and Smt. Anjali Menon for the Kerala State Maritime Board, Sri. T. Naveen for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Sri. Brijesh Mohan, Sri. P.M. Pareeth, Sri. Muhammed Shafi and Sri. P.U. Shailajan for respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 and 10 and 11, 14, 16 to 18 and 20 respectively, and perused the pleadings and materials on record.
18. The sole question to be considered is whether the permission/consent of the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority and the Kerala State Pollution Control Board are required in order to W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 : 15 : conduct the dredging and cleaning of sand. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the petitioner is basically concerned with the pollution of the well water consequent to the activities in question and therefore, unless and until activities are regulated in accordance with the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2011 ('CRZ Notification, 2011' for short) and as per the Environmental Laws by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, it would lead to disastrous situations, and environmental degradation.
19. Bearing in mind the right of the citizens to enjoy the right and liberty in a meaningful manner by protecting the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, we propose to, first of all, identify as to whether clearance is required from the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority under the CRZ Notification, 2011.
20. Para 3 of the CRZ Notification, 2011 deals with prohibited activities within the CRZ area. Clause (iv) of para 3 deals with Land reclamation, bunding or disturbing the natural course of seawater except the activities required for setting up, construction or modernisation or expansion of foreshore facilities like ports, harbours, jetties, wharves, quays, slipways, bridges, sealink, road on stilts, and such as meant for defence and security purpose and for other facilities that are essential for activities permissible under the notification, provided that such roads shall not be taken as authorised for W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 : 16 : permitting development on landward side of such roads till the existing High Tide Line. It is further provided that the use of reclaimed land may be permitted for roads, mass rapid or multimodal transit system, construction and installation, on landward side of such roads, of all necessary associated public utilities and infrastructure to operate such transit or transport system including those for electrical or electronic signal system, transit stopover of permitted designs, except for any industrial operation, repair and maintenance.
21. However, sub-clause (b) of clause (iv) of para 3 makes it clear that measures for control of erosion, based on scientific studies, including Environmental Impact Assessment Studies, are to be carried on. That apart, clause (c) thereto makes it clear that the maintenance or clearing of waterways, channels and ports, are to be based on EIA studies. Para 4 deals with regulation of permissible activities in the CRZ area, except those prohibited in para 3 above.
22. Relying upon the said provisions, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority submitted that for carrying out the aforesaid activities, an EIA study has to be conducted by the Kerala State Maritime Board and thereafter, the matter be placed before the Coastal Zone Management Authority in order to decide as to whether permission can be granted to such activities. That apart, the EIA notification 2006 is also relevant to the W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 : 17 : context. A Schedule is constituted under the said notification in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 7 therein. Clause 7(e) of the Schedule deals with ports, harbours, break waters, dredging etc. and it reads thus:
"Ports, ≥ 5 million TPA of < 5 million TPA (5) "General Harbours, cargo handling of cargo handling Condition shall capacity and/or apply.
break waters, capacity (excluding
ports/ harbours Note:
dredging." fishing harbours)
≥10,000 TPA of 1.Capital dredging
fish handling
inside and outside
capacity the port or harbors
channels are
included;
2. Maintenance
dredging is exempt
provided it formed
part of the original
proposal for which
Environment
Management Plan
(EMP) was prepared
and environmental
clearance obtained."
23. Therefore, in our considered opinion, insofar as the present activity of dredging and cleaning of sand etc. is concerned, an EIA study has to be conducted by the Kerala State Maritime Board in W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 : 18 : respect of the river and other rivers in question and the matter has to be placed before the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority.
24. It is also clear from the report submitted by the Pollution Control Board that inspections were conducted in the sand based units on the basis of the complaints received in the office of the Board and found that solid waste containing sea shells and other stone particles deposited during the activity are dumped at the site without periodic removal; that the solid waste and waste water management facilities were not adequate; and that the water which flows into the river after the process is waste water. It is also pointed out that the settling arrangement provided for the water is not adequate and hence, sand with clay content got discharged into the river and the clay removed from the clay tank was heaped in the premises without periodic removal.
25. The sum and substance of the report is that no full-fledged waste water treatment is provided before discharging the waste water back to the river. It is also clear that samples were taken from the river and were analyzed as per the standards specified by the Bureau of Indian Standards and on an analysis, it was found that the river water quality at the centre of the river is good and at the activity area, it is slightly polluted, which is said to be the condition while sand dredging and sand washing works are not functioning. That apart, it is W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 : 19 : pointed out that as per Annexure R4(c) circular dated 09.07.2019, the manual of dredging activity is categorised under 'green category', which means whoever carrying out such activities has to obtain consent to establish and operate from the Board.
26. We have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar. It is clear from the CRZ Notification, 2011, and the EIA notification that the Environment Impact Assessment Study is a mandatory requirement before carrying out even manual dredging operations in the port area. It is an admitted case of the Kerala State Maritime Board that no EIA study was conducted and therefore, it is necessary that a direction is issued to the Kerala State Maritime Board to conduct EIA studies within a time frame to be fixed by this Court and to place it before the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority. So also, the activities of the sand mining, dredging and washing of the sand are all matters to be dealt with by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board as per Annexure R4(c) circular dated 09.07.2019. Admittedly, the consent to establish and consent to operate are not secured by any of the statutory authorities or contractors.
27. In that view of the matter also, a direction is to be issued to the Pollution Control Board as well as the statutory authorities. However, the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayats have stated that contracts are already awarded and the activities are being W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 : 20 : carried out by the Panchayats from the year 2017-2018 onwards; and that it is done to cater to the needs of the common man, and also it is an income generated to the Panchayats to carry on with its developmental activities and therefore, if the Panchayats are directed to stop the activities all on a sudden, it would cause serious prejudice to them.
28. Taking into account the above aspects, we are of the view that a balanced approach is to be made by this Court. Accordingly, we issue the following directions:
1. The Kerala State Maritime Board shall conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment Study forthwith and complete the same within a period of three months and place a report before the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority immediately thereafter.
2. The Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, on receipt of the EIA Study report, shall make due enquiries and arrive at its own independent finding as to whether permission can be granted for dredging and other activities in contemplation of the provisions of the CRZ Notification, 2011 and the EIA notification, 2006.
3. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board shall immediately conduct inspections in the units engaged for cleaning, the sand dredged by the Kerala State Maritime Board/respective Panchayats and issue directions for abating the nuisance and the pollution caused due to the washing of the sand by the riverside.
So also, periodical inspection shall be conducted to ensure that W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 : 21 : the conditions imposed by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board are scrupulously and strictly followed by the Panchayats/contractors.
4. At any cost, a fresh contract or permission of, whatsoever, cannot be awarded by the Kerala State Maritime Board/Panchayats for dredging, washing and cleaning of sand in the Port areas in question without securing necessary environmental clearance from the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, and consent to establish and operate from the Kerala Pollution Control Board after the ensuing contract period of 2021-2022.
5. We also make it clear that any dredging activity and washing and cleaning of sand so dredged, shall not be permitted for the year 2022-2023 and after the present contract period is over, without the environmental clearance from the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority and consent to establish and operate from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board.
The Writ Petition is disposed of with the observations and directions, as above.
sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.
sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 : 22 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41341/2017 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION IDENTITY CARD OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA DATED 22/10/1998.
EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF GO(K)NO.2/2017/FPD DATED 09/02/2017 ALONG WITH THE DRAFT MANUAL DREDGING POLICY WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.26/2016/FPD DATED 17/08/2016 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.369/2015/F&PD DATED 16/05/2015.
EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.71/2014/F&PD DATED 15/12/2014 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY M/S.RAJADHANI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED FOR ESTABLISHING A SAND PURIFICATION UNIT IN TIRUR TALUK BEFORE THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT OFFICE DATED 27/05/2016 EXHIBIT P7: PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PURIFICATION OF MINED SAND IN KANNUR PORT.
EXHIBIT P8: PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE MINING OF SAND UNDER THE RAILWAY BRIDGE AS WELL AS NEAR TO THE ELECTRIC TOWER AND MANGROVES BY THE SIDE OF VALAPATTANAM RIVER EXHIBIT P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 08/11/2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE TEST REPORT OF THE SAND ANALYSED BY THE GOVERNMENT COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KANNUR RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
Exhibit R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A 1855/2016 DATED 03/11/2016 PASSED BY THIS COURT.W.P.(C) No. 41341/2017 : 23 :
Exhibit R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS WITNESSING REGULAR TRAFFIC AT AZHEEKKAL PORT.
ANNEXURE R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS.
ANNEXURE R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ANALYSIS REPORT.
ANNEXURE R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 09.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE BOARD.
EXHIBIT R5(c) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 05.10.2021 ISSUED BY MATTOOL GRAMA PANCHAYAT AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT R5(d) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 01.10.2021 ISSUED BY PAPPINISSERI GRAMA PANCHAYAT AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT R5(e) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 01.10.2021 ISSUED BY AZHIKODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT R5(f) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 01.10.2021 ISSUED BY VALAPATTANAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
ANNEXURE R5(a) TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN M.A.NO. 803 OF 2013 IN O.A. NO. 286/2013 PASSED BY NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI.
ANNEXURE R5(b) TRUE COPY OF FINAL ORDER DATED 08.08.2014 IN OA NO. 271/2013 IN O.A. NO. 286/2013 PASSED BY NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI.
/True Copy/ PS To Judge.
rv