Kerala High Court
Mohamed vs The State Environment Impact ... on 30 March, 2026
WA NO. 753 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:28310
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WA NO. 753 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.03.2026 IN WP(C) NO.5224
OF 2026 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
MOHAMED,
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. MOOSA HAJI, KUNIYIL HOUSE, KANNATTIPADI P.O.,
VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676304
BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
SMT.SMITHA BABU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT
AUTHORITY, KERALA (SEIAAK),
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, 4TH FLOOR,
KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE MEMBER SECRETARY,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
WA NO. 753 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:28310
3 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT
OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA ROAD, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676505
4 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT
OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 676121
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
OORAKAM VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676519
BY ADV SRI M.P. SREEKRISHNAN REPRESENTED BY ADV
MOHAMMED MUSTHAP A FOR R1
SRI T NAVEEN FOR R2, R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 753 OF 2026
3
2026:KER:28310
JUDGMENT
Soumen Sen, C.J.
The writ appellant is aggrieved by the direction issued by the learned Single Judge refusing to dispense with public consultation in respect of the quarry in the same cluster. For proper understanding, paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment is reproduced below:
"4. Needless to say that, the petitioner will submit necessary application for public hearing before the 2nd respondent/Pollution Control Board, and the same will be proceeded in accordance with law, in the light of the directions contained in this judgment expeditiously."
2. It is submitted that, once the proposed quarry forms part of a cluster, and having regard to the fact that the other quarry in the cluster has not been made operational and that no other quarry is presently in operation, it may not be necessary to seek a report of the public hearing in terms of Clause 7(3) of the EIA Notification, 2006, read with Appendix XI issued under paragraph 7(1)(b) of the said Notification. Appendix XI sets out the procedure for environmental clearance WA NO. 753 OF 2026 4 2026:KER:28310 for the mining of minor minerals, including clusters.
3. Although the term "cluster" is not defined in the Act or in the Notification, it appears from Clause 6 of Appendix IX that a mining unit shall be treated to be a cluster and as forming part of a cluster where the distance between the peripheries of one lease is less than 500 meters from the periphery of another lease in a homogeneous mineral area. This provision applies to mining leases granted on or after 9th September 2013. It may not be in dispute that there is one existing lease in a homogeneous mineral area in which the writ petitioner has made an application for granting permission to carry out the quarry activities.
4. The learned counsel for the writ appellant submits that, for mining of minor minerals if it is part of a cluster, as envisaged in Appendix XI, Rule 3, makes it clear that there shall be one public consultation for the entire cluster, after which the final Environmental Impact Assessment or Environmental Management Plan report for the cluster shall be prepared.
WA NO. 753 OF 2026 5 2026:KER:28310
5. In view of the submission made, that the position of the petitioner within the cluster depends upon an earlier lease and that the distance between the periphery of the lease is less than 500 metres, and that the lease is not yet operational, it would be for the competent authority to decide, in the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the procedure for conducting a public hearing under Appendix IV issued in terms of paragraph 7 is at all required. While determining a cluster, it would include all peripheral areas that form part of the cluster where another lease is granted within 500 metres from the periphery of an existing lease, if such determination is found necessary.
6. The Act does not contemplate that a public hearing is required for every mining lease within a cluster. However, the necessity may depend on whether the operation of a mining lease in the cluster is likely to have adverse impacts, which may not be immediately apparent but may be realised over a period of time, particularly when it operates along with other mining leases in the cluster. It is for this reason that, it may be WA NO. 753 OF 2026 6 2026:KER:28310 necessary that while permitting another lease in the cluster to operate, a public hearing may be necessary.
7. After all, environmental issues are of primary consideration, and the authorities concerned are best suited to take an appropriate decision in this regard. The decision of the authorities on the necessity of a public hearing, in absence of any quarry being functional in the cluster, may be relevant in processing the application filed by the writ petitioner.
With the aforesaid clarification, we dispose of the writ appeal.
Sd/-
SOUMEN SEN CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE jjj