Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Ashok Bhushan, C.J.

This Writ Petition filed as a public interest litigation prays for stopping of illegal mining operations being conducted by respondents 11 to 17, who without there being any valid permits are continuing with the mining operations affecting environment and ecology.

2. The first petitioner is a registered association registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955. The 2nd petitioner is a member of the 1st petitioner and a local resident. Petitioners' case in the Writ Petition is that unauthorised and illegal mining operations are being conducted by the private respondents causing rampant damage to environment, houses and properties of the local residents. Mambra area in Parakkadavu Panchayat in Ernakulam District is a thickly populated area where unauthorised mining operations are being done for years in blatant violation of law. The statutory authorities turned blind eyes to this illegality. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Deepak Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana & Others ([2012] 4 SCC 629) and the order issued by the Government of India on 18.05.2012 it is stated that no mining activities after the aforesaid judgment and order are permissible without obtaining environmental clearance. State Government has issued an illegal Government Order on 10.01.2014 exempting certain quarries from the requirement of environmental clearance till 09.01.2015. The 5th respondent issued permits in the year 2014 to respondents 11 to 17 to carry on mining operations without securing environmental clearance and without there being any approved mining plan. It is submitted that provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 and Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1961 Regulations") are also required to be followed by the private respondents and other persons who are carrying on mining operations. Detailed representations have been submitted by the petitioners. An earlier Writ Petition No.12942 of 2012 was filed by the petitioners challenging the illegal conduct of mining operations which petition was disposed of. After the judgment of this Court, the 5th respondent considered the issue and finding that no further quarrying is possible directed the respondents to stop all the operations in Sy.Nos.168/3, 4, 5 of Parakkadavu Village. However, the 11th respondent again managed to secure an order from the Government and fresh permit was given in the year 2014. Private respondents are also violating the provisions of the Mines Act and the 1961 Regulations. Huge pits about 500 ft depth without Benches are being created which causes perpetual threat to human life. The private respondents have not secured permission to use machinery under Section 233 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Blasting and firing are done within the dangerous zone of 300 metres. Without obtaining environmental clearance on the basis of the permits granted in the year 2014 the private respondents are carrying mining operations. Petitioners have also challenged the first proviso to Rule 12 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2015 Rules") as it being unconstitutional and ultra vires in so far as it exempt operations of quarry from 09.01.2015 from the requirement of environmental clearance on renewal of permits. Petitioners also rely on the Division Bench judgment in All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala (2015 (3) KLT 78) where law was laid down that without environmental clearance no mining operations can be carried on after 18.05.2012. Petitioners on the aforesaid pleadings have prayed for the following reliefs:

v) To direct respondents 1 to 3 and 9 to take prosecution against the party respondents under the provisions of the relevant statutes for damaging the environment by doing unauthorised and illegal mining operations.
vi) Issue such other writ, direction or order that this Honourable Court may deem fit, just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 13 and 14 pleading that petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the Writ Petition. First petitioner though claims to be a registered association, no document has been produced to establish that it is a registered association. No document has been produced to prove that P.P.Philip who claims to be the Patron of the 1st petitioner is actually the Patron of the 1st petitioner and he is authorised to file the Writ Petition. P.P.Philip is a resident of Thrissur and the petition has been filed with ulterior motives. Petitioners having not come with clean hands, the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. The 11th respondent was issued permit on 27.12.2010 and respondents 12, 13 and 14 were also issued quarrying permits till 2014-15. Directions issued in Deepak Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana & Others (supra) have been incorporated in the 2015 Rules, hence the directions in Deepak Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana & Others (supra) are no longer operative. The 14th respondent was also conducting quarrying operations since 2010. Permits granted in favour of respondents 11 to 14 were further renewed till 26.01.2015. It is stated that respondents have stopped quarrying operations since 26.01.2015. Allegation that the private respondents are violating provisions of the Mines Act and the 1961 Regulations are incorrect. Respondents 11, 12 and 17 stopped quarrying operations on 09.02.2015, respondents 13 and 14 stopped the quarrying operations on 26.01.2015, the 15th respondent stopped the quarrying operations on 25.01.2015 and the 16th respondent stopped quarrying operations on 02.12.2014. There is no illegality in the first proviso to Rule 12 of the 2015 Rules. Respondents are facing so many difficulties due to the unhealthy competition and the action of the State Government to grant exemption for obtaining environmental clearance to those mining permits which were operating till 09.01.2015 is based on valid reasons. Private respondents have right to carry out the operations for their own livelihood which is guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. There is acute shortage of raw materials in the construction field of the State and due to standstill of construction, Government have pleased to extend the operation of the Government Order dated 09.01.2014 for a further period of one year. Private respondents have filed copy of their mining permits along with the counter affidavit. A separate counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 11, 12 and 17 reiterating the same pleadings as has been noticed above. Respondents 15 and 16 have also filed separate counter affidavit almost on the same lines.

5. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the State. It is stated that the 1st proviso to Rule 12 as well as clause (f) of Rule 10(1) have already been amended, hence the challenge to the 1st proviso of Rule 12 cannot be sustained. It is pleaded that the State being the Rule making authority has framed the 2015 Rules. Distance of 100 metres fixed by Rule 10 cannot be held to be illegal or ultra vires. The argument that the distance rule is repugnant to the 1961 Regulation is purely untenable. It is further pleaded that if environmental clearance is insisted for all quarrying operations whether lease or permit, entire quarrying operations in the State will come to a standstill which in turn slide down the entire ongoing developmental activities and other related matters affecting the socio-economic structure of the State. Government had adopted and accepted the principles propounded by the Apex Court in Deepak Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana & Others (supra), namely restricted regulatory regime. The date fixed as 09.01.2015 in Rule 12 has valid reason. State had earlier issued Government Orders dated 23.11.2012 and 10.01.2014 whereby short term permits were allowed to be renewed without insisting environmental clearance. Those persons having valid permit as on 09.01.2015 were treated as existing permit holders and for the purpose of renewal no environmental clearance is required for that. More than 2000 quarries are functioning as of now requiring mining plans to be submitted. Therefore it is not practicable to obtain mining plans all of a sudden. The total stoppage due to want of mining plan will result in standstill of the entire quarrying operations which may affect the ongoing developmental projects. It is submitted that the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.

"12. Renewal of a quarrying permit.-- On receipt of an application in Form - A, a quarrying permit may be renewed for a further period of two years but not exceeding one year at a time after complying with the procedure provided for grant of quarrying permit under R.9 and subject to the production of all other statutory licenses / clearances / No Objection Certificate, etc. from other statutory authorities concerned:
Provided that, the environmental clearance required under R.9 shall not be insisted, in the case of renewal of quarrying permits, in respect of quarries which had a valid permit as on 9th day of January, 2015.