Kerala High Court
M/S Ernad Granites Industries vs State Environmental Impact Assessment ... on 19 November, 2021
Author: Anu Sivaraman
Bench: Anu Sivaraman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 25935 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
M/S ERNAD GRANITES INDUSTRIES
KIZHAKKUMPARAMBA, PANATHALLUR P.O, MALAPPURAM 676 521
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR K.V MOHAMMED ALI K.V
BY ADVS.
T.P.SAJID
SHIFA LATHEEF
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY - SEIAA
4TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL BUILDING, THAMPANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 685 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER
SECRETARY
2 STATE LEVEL EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (SEAC)
4TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL BUILDING, THAMPANOOR,
THRIUVANANTHAPURAM 685 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER
SECRETARY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 25935 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs.
(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring that Exts.P6 and P7 decisions taken by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority in so far as it restricts the validity of Environmental Clearance for mining projects to 5 years instead of for the life of mine, is without authority and violative of clause 9(i) of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2006;
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, commanding the 1st and 2nd respondents to estimate the project life of the petitioner's mine and grant prior Environmental Clearance for the period of the estimated project life subject to a maximum of 30 years as stipulated in clause 9(i) of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2006;
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a grantee of quarrying lease for an extent of 1.6902 hectares of land. It is submitted that the Environmental Clearance has also been granted to the petitioner which is valid for a period of 5 years from 19.06.2017. It is submitted that the validity of the WP(C) NO. 25935 OF 2021 3 Environmental Clearance is not liable to be restricted to a period lesser than the project life/ mine life estimated by the appraisal committee. The petitioner has, therefore, sought directions for re- validation of Ext.P5 Environmental Clearance for the full duration of the project life of the quarry.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as per paragraph 9(i) of the EIA Notification 2006, an Environmental Clearance has to be valid for the period of the project life/life of the mine as estimated by the respondents. Therefore, Ext.P5 Environmental Clearance is unsustainable to the extent it provides a shorter period of duration. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that this Court has considered the legality of limiting the period of Environmental Clearance disregarding the life of mining project and has held that limiting the period of Environmental Clearance for five years would be against the terms and spirit of 2006 Notification.
5. However, the validity of Environmental Clearance granted to the petitioner on 19.06.2017, was limited to 5 years. This Court considered the legality of issuing Environmental Clearance for a WP(C) NO. 25935 OF 2021 4 shorter duration and held in the judgment in T. Mathew Abraham v. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority [2020 (6) KLT 302] that the Scheme of 2006 Notification as far as mining projects are concerned, is that if it is found that Environmental Clearance is to be granted for a mining project, the same shall be granted for the life of the project as estimated by the Expert Appraisal Committees concerned and that decision of SEIAA to limit the validity of the ECs to be granted for mining projects to 5 years, is against the terms and spirit of the 2006 Notification.
6. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of following the judgment in T. Mathew Abraham v. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (supra). It is declared that Ext.P5 Environmental Clearance is invalid to the limited extent, it limits the validity of Environmental Clearance for five years. The regulatory bodies concerned are directed to call for additional recommendations from the Appraisal Committee after estimating the life of the project of the petitioner in respect of Ext.P5 and revalidate the Environmental Clearance granted to the petitioner. It will be open to the Appraisal Committee to call for additional WP(C) NO. 25935 OF 2021 5 information required and in that event, it will be obligatory for the petitioner to furnish additional information called for. The recommendations of the Appraisal Committee would not be binding on the regulatory body and if the regulatory body disagrees with the recommendations made by the Appraisal Committee as regards the project life of the petitioner's project, the regulatory body would be free to follow the procedure mentioned in Clause 8 of 2006 Notification in the matter of arriving at the conclusion as to the life of the project of the petitioner, for the purpose of complying with the directions contained in this judgment.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for SEIAA that the term of SEIAA has expired and that reconstitution of the SEIAA is expected within a month. In the above view of the matter, the directions shall be complied within a period of three months from the date on which the SEIAA is duly reconstituted.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE SVP WP(C) NO. 25935 OF 2021 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25935/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED 5-06-2020 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PANCHAYATH LICENSE DATED 27- 03-2019 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINING PLAN WITHOUT ANNEXURES APPROVED ON 19-08-2017 BY THE GEOLOGIST , KANNUR Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF LICENSE DATED 2/3/2020 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE NO.
12/2017 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17-06- 2017 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 34TH MEETING OF THE SEIAA HELD ON 31/10/2014 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 89TH MEETING OF THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY DATED 27TH FEBRUARY 2020 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN DEEPAK KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 2012 4 SCC 629 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/11/2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 23578/2020 Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2/07/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C) NO.
12357/2021Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11/11/2021