Kerala High Court
Sathiamma vs State Of Kerala on 30 October, 2019
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1941
WP(C).No.12143 OF 2019(P)
PETITIONER:
SATHIAMMA
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O VIJAYA NATHA KURUP, R/O IRATTAKALAYIL HOUSE, THENGAMAM
P.O., SOORANAD, PATHANAMTHITTA-690 522.
BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 DISTRICT LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT
ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (DEIAA), REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.
4 GEOLOGIST
PATHANAMTHITTA MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT
OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, ARANMULA P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.
*ADDL STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY,
R5 REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, 4TH FLOOR, KSRTC
BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, THAMPANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
*(ADDITIONAL R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED
30/10/2019 IN IA 01/2019)
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN - SC, SRI.MANURAJ K.J - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.10.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.12143 OF 2019(P)
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court asserting that she has been already recommended and permitted by the now defunct District Level Expert Appraisal Committee (DEAC for short) and by District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) to mine laterite stones from her property.
2. According to the petitioner, as is clear from Ext.P7 Minutes of the meeting of the DEAC dated 12.11.2018, her case was also considered and recommendations were made for issuance of the Environmental Clearance with respect to the proposal submitted by her. She says that, along with her, at least six other applications were also considered and similar recommendations have been made. She says that unfortunately for her, the District Collector was not available for a few days thereafter, and therefore, that she had not been issued with the Environmental Clearance; but that the other proposals shown in Ext.P7 were issued with the same subsequently. She, therefore, prays that the District Collector be directed to issue the Environmental Clearance, as per the recommendations of the DEAC, as is evident from Ext.P7.
3. Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned counsel appearing for WP(C).No.12143 OF 2019(P) 3 State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, (SEIAA for short) submits that on account of the judgments of the National Green Tribunal ('NGT' for short), the DEAC and DEIAA have been disbanded and their jurisdiction has now been vested with the SEIAA. He says that on account of the afore mentioned orders of the NGT, amendments to the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, brought in through S.O.141(E) dated 15.01.2016, have been set aside and consequently, any action taken by the DEAC and DEIAA would be now irrelevant; and therefore, that the petitioner must approach the SEIAA online, with a fresh application in its proper format if she is still interested in obtaining an Environmental Clearance.
4. The learned Government Pleader, Sri.Manu Raj K.J, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, also affirms the afore submissions made by Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan and submits that since the DEIAA did not issue any final order in favour of the petitioner, she cannot obtain any vested right to claim that the SEIAA must consider her earlier application or that is must follow the action already taken by the DEIAA or the DEAC. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed.
5. I find substantial force in the submissions of WP(C).No.12143 OF 2019(P) 4 Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan and the learned Government Pleader, since, as is ineluctable from Ext.P7, the DEAC had only made a recommendation for issuance of the Environmental Clearance and the petitioner herself concedes that she did not receive the Environmental Clearance Certificate from the District Collector until now. Of course, the submission of Sri.M.K.Chandra Mohandas, learned counsel for the petitioner, on this aspect is that issuance of an Environmental Clearance Certificate is only an administrative action and that the District Collector ought to have automatically done so based on Ext.P7.
6. I am, however, of the view that I cannot find favour with the above submissions of Sri.Chandra Mohandas, because, as long as the Environment Clearance Certificate had not been issued by the competent Authority, I do not think that the petitioner can claim any vested right, particularly because, as is clear from Ext.P7, the DEAC has only recommended her case and further proceedings for issuance of the Environment Clearance Certificate had not been thereafter completed. This is more so because, as rightly pointed out by Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, amendments to the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, dated 15.01.2016 have WP(C).No.12143 OF 2019(P) 5 now been set aside and obviously, the DEIAA is no longer in force.
7. I am, therefore, of the firm opinion that the petitioner must make a fresh application before the SEIAA; but that the said Authority must consider the same quicker than they normally do on account of the fact that she has been waiting for the Environmental Clearance for the last several years.
8. Gauging my mind as afore, Sri.Chandra Mohandas also submitted that his client will make a fresh application and prayed that the same be directed to be considered by the SEIAA in a months time.
Resultantly and taking note of the above submissions, I order this writ petition and grant liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate online application before the SEIAA; and if this is done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the said Authority will complete the proceedings thereon and issue necessary orders, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two months from the date on which the application is received by them. WP(C).No.12143 OF 2019(P) 6 I make it clear that I am fixing the time short for the reasons that have already been stated above and therefore, if the SEIAA require any files from the erst-while DEAC, the same shall be made available to them by the 3 rd respondent - District Collector, as and when any such requisition is made to him, without any avoidable delay.
SD/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
rp JUDGE
WP(C).No.12143 OF 2019(P)
7
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 7.6.2017
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 LETTER OFINTENT NO.1733/DOPTA/M/17 DATED
18.11.2017 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE FILE NO.KERALA
STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD/PTA/ICO/QR/227/2017 DATED 27.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P4 LETTER NO.1124/DOPTA/M/17 DATED 29.1.2018. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF NOC NO.B3-1606-2018 DATED 20.7.2018. EXHIBIT P6 A COPY OF THE MINUTES OF TEH DEIAA HELD ON 12.7.2018.
EXHIBIT P7 A CIOT IF TGE NUBYTES IF TGE NEETUBG IF TGE DEIAC DATED 12.11.2018.
EXHIBIT P8 A COPY OF LETTER NO.B1-4465/2017 DATED 2.11.2018