National Green Tribunal
Minering Aggregates Private Limited vs Sieaa on 25 February, 2026
Item No.4:-
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 25th day of February, 2026.
[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]
Appeal No.60 of 2024 (SZ)
IN THE MATTER OF
Minering Aggregates Private Limited
Represented by its Managing Director,
Mr. Antony S. Alukkal,
Door No.17/436A, Kurishupally Road,
Adat, Thrissur District,
Kerala - 680 551.
...Appellant(s)
Versus
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)
Represented by its Chairman
Directorate of Environment & Climate Change,
4th Floor, KSRTC Bus Terminal,
Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram,
Kerala - 695 001.
...Respondent(s)
For Appellant (s): M/s. Tanushree Arvind & Simran Srinivasan.
For Respondent(s): Mr. G. Prabhu.
Judgment Reserved on: 12th February, 2026.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member
1. The above appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 13.06.2024, passed by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) - Kerala, rejecting the appellant's proposal for the grant of Environmental Clearance for the proposed mining operation in Kolathur Village, Kasaragod Taluk.
Page 1 of 52. The appellant had proposed to do the granite building stone mining for an area of 4.7998 Hectares at Re-Survey Block No.1, Re-Survey Nos.23/1 Part 427, 23/1 Part 426, 23/1 Part 4 and 23/1 Part 375 of Kolathur Village, Kasaragod Taluk and made an application to the SEIAA - Kerala on 14.10.2022. The site inspection was conducted on 03.01.2023 and a presentation was made on 06.07.2023. However, the proposal was rejected by the SEIAA - Kerala in its 141st Meeting, noticing that the Project Proponent proposed settling ponds to collect the drainage water and after treatment, the water will be used for agricultural usage. The authority also noted that the mitigation proposals as suggested by the Project Proponent are not suitable or viable to nullify the possible contamination of the Chandragiri River at a distance of 60 meters. Hence, the proposal was rejected.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the above appeal is preferred by the Project Proponent/Appellant.
4. The application for Environmental Clearance was originally submitted on 14.10.2022, a site inspection was conducted on 03.01.2023 and the proposal was presented before the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) - Kerala on 06.07.2023. The SEAC - Kerala, in its 151st Meeting held on 16.10.2023, recommended the rejection of the proposal invoking the 'Precautionary Principle', citing the possible impact on the Chandragiri River, a drinking water source for the district and also the existence of the check dam about 2 Kms downstream, where water is extracted for public supply.
5. According to the appellant, the Chandragiri River is situated 60 meters from the quarry boundary as per the revenue approved survey map. Under Rule 10 (f) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, a minimum distance of 50 meters is fixed where explosives are not used.
6. It is also submitted that the project site does not fall within the hazard zonation area. Aggrieved by the initial rejection, the appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in W.P. No.40603 of 2023, which was disposed of on 19.01.2024, directing the SEIAA - Kerala to reconsider the claim a fresh after Page 2 of 5 affording an opportunity of personal hearing. Subsequently, a hearing was conducted on 29.01.2024 and a detailed note was submitted by the Appellant on 19.03.2024, wherein the appellant assured that the entire rainwater from the catchment area would be directed to silt the settling ponds and after treatment, the water will be reused for agricultural and local purpose. The appellant also undertook to establish the water treatment plant at the site for distributing the potable water to the villages and is willing to bear the cost of labour, water treatment chemicals, electricity and maintenance charges. Such installation would not only prevent any discharge into the Chandragiri River situate about 60 meters away, but also augment the potable water supply to the public.
7. The SEIAA - Kerala, in its reply statement, mentioned that the proposal was considered in the 137th Meeting held on 29th & 30th January 2024, after the Hon'ble High Court had given the direction. The proposal was placed again in the 138 th Meeting and thereafter, in the 141st Meeting. The authorities noted that the mitigation proposals as suggested by the appellant are not suitable or viable to nullify the possible contamination of the Chandragiri River, which is a drinking water source to the public. Hence, the recommendation of the SEAC - Kerala was accepted and rejected the proposal based on the 'Precautionary Principle'.
8. The question that arises for consideration is whether the rejection of the proposal by the SEIAA - Kerala is sustainable.
9. The project pertains to the granite building stone mining over an extent of 4.7998 Hectares in Kolathur Village, Kasargod and the activities are proposed within 100 Meters from the hill area. The terrain is undulating in nature with the site situated on a side/middle slope. Such topographical features increase the vulnerability of the area to soil erosion, surface run off and potential downstream impacts. The presence of the soil thickness of 2.2 meters, which is very thick and also an abandoned water-logged quarry pit and slope orientation towards the river were considered relevant environmental sensitives.
Page 3 of 510. Given the extent of the mining area and the geomorphological characteristics, the SEIAA & SEAC - Kerala were of the opinion that any adverse impact could have cumulative consequences. The SEIAA - Kerala observed that the environmental concerns previously recorded by the SEAC - Kerala, particularly with respect to the protection of the public drinking water source and the vulnerability of the site due to its topography and proximity to the river, remained unresolved. Accordingly, accepting the recommendation of the SEAC - Kerala and applying the 'Precautionary Principle', the proposals were rejected on 13.06.2024.
11. It is not in dispute that the distance between the quarry boundary and the Chandragiri River is about 60 meters. Rule 10 (f) of the Kerala Minor Concession Rules, 2015, prescribes a minimum buffer of 50 meters in cases where explosives are not used. The impugned order does not record any violation of this statutory requirement, nor does it furnish any scientific reasoning for justifying the necessity of a buffer that exceeds the statutory prescription.
12. The appellant had placed a satellite map indicating that the entire project site falls within a low hazard zone. The Slope Stability Report dated December 2024, prepared by Water, Environmental Sciences & Technology Consultants (WESTCON) has evaluated that the quarry site is located within the safe zone. It further records that the elevation difference between the upper and lower portion of the quarry is about 50 meters and concludes that the slope instability problems are unlikely in the quarry site. Further, on the issue of the slope instability and hazardous perception, the SEIAA has not considered any independent technical study of comparable evidential value contradicting the conclusions of the slope stability report.
13. It is only a generalized statement without technical substantiation and the same cannot override the site-specific expert assessment. No doubt, the 'precautionary principle' empowers the environmental authorities to prevent any anticipated impact. However, the invocation of the same must rest upon a reasoned assessment of risk supported by appropriate Page 4 of 5 material on record. A mere generalized apprehension alone, particularly when the distance criteria prescribed under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, are complied with and mitigation measures were offered, cannot be the reason to override the same.
14. It goes without saying that environmental governance requires a balance between environmental protection and procedural fairness. When the appellant has proposed specific safeguards without examining the adequacy and recording the reasons for their insufficiency, the SEIAA - Kerala ought not have rejected the proposal. The technical body, like the SEIAA, while rejecting the proposal, should give analytical reasoning, which is consequently absent in the impugned order.
15. In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the proposal was rejected only on the ground of the 'precautionary principle' without any scientific reasoning. Hence, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned rejection order for reconsideration.
16. In the result, the appeal [Appeal No. 60 of 2024 (SZ)] is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the SEIAA-Kerala is set aside. The matter is remitted to the SEIAA-Kerala for reconsideration, with a direction to pass appropriate orders after affording the appellant an opportunity of personal hearing within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of this judgment.
Sd/-
Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM Sd/-
Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM Internet - Yes/No All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No Appeal No.60/2024 (SZ) 25th February, 2026. Mn.
Page 5 of 5