Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (6.87 seconds)
Documents citing All Kerala River Protection Council vs State Of Kerala on 5 October, 2021

The Paristhithy Samrakshana Janakeeya ... vs The State Of Kerala

20. Submission is made by the learned counsel for the private respondents as well as the learned Government Pleader that there is acute shortage of minor minerals in the State and insistence for environmental clearance in all cases for carrying on mining operations will make the development in the State standstill. Environmental protection cannot be sacrificed in the name of development. Development has to be carried out taking due care of environment. It needs no emphasis that it is the obligation of all the State Governments, all generations to protect the natural resources. Natural resources cannot be allowed to be over exploited contrary to the statutory regulatory regime which W.P(C) No.10694 of 2015 -: 25 :- is imposed by various statutes. As noted above all aspects of the mining operations in the State of Kerala have been considered in detail by the Division Bench of this Court in All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala (supra) and the ratio of the said judgment has already been extracted above. To permit carrying on mining operations contrary to the statutory regulations and contrary to the law declared by this Court shall be disastrous for the natural resources which belong not only to the present generation but also to the future generations. Thus the submission of the learned counsel for the private respondents as well as the learned Government Pleader that since development will come to halt if environmental clearance is insisted on every mining permit does not appeal to us and cannot be accepted. There is no impediment in carrying on mining operations after obtaining environmental clearance as per the 2015 Rules. It is not the case of any one that environmental clearance has not been granted to several persons who have made applications and complied with all the necessary requirements. When others have obtained environmental W.P(C) No.10694 of 2015 -: 26 :- clearance and are carrying on mining operations, no exception can be made with reference to private respondents in the present case.
Kerala High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

The Paristhithy Samrakshana Janakeeya ... vs The State Of Kerala

20. Submission is made by the learned counsel for the private respondents as well as the learned Government Pleader that there is acute shortage of minor minerals in the State and insistence for environmental clearance in all cases for carrying on mining operations will make the development in the State standstill. Environmental protection cannot be sacrificed in the name of development. Development has to be carried out taking due care of environment. It needs no emphasis that it is the obligation of all the State Governments, all generations to protect the natural resources. Natural resources cannot be allowed to be over exploited contrary to the statutory regulatory regime which W.P(C) No.10694 of 2015 -: 25 :- is imposed by various statutes. As noted above all aspects of the mining operations in the State of Kerala have been considered in detail by the Division Bench of this Court in All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala (supra) and the ratio of the said judgment has already been extracted above. To permit carrying on mining operations contrary to the statutory regulations and contrary to the law declared by this Court shall be disastrous for the natural resources which belong not only to the present generation but also to the future generations. Thus the submission of the learned counsel for the private respondents as well as the learned Government Pleader that since development will come to halt if environmental clearance is insisted on every mining permit does not appeal to us and cannot be accepted. There is no impediment in carrying on mining operations after obtaining environmental clearance as per the 2015 Rules. It is not the case of any one that environmental clearance has not been granted to several persons who have made applications and complied with all the necessary requirements. When others have obtained environmental W.P(C) No.10694 of 2015 -: 26 :- clearance and are carrying on mining operations, no exception can be made with reference to private respondents in the present case.
Kerala High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Sibi Joseph vs Union Of India on 20 December, 2023

40. It is also stated that the SLP filed against the All-Kerala River Protection Council vs. State of Kerala was dismissed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court on 02.12.2016. On 30.06.2020 in O.A. No. 136 of 2017 this Tribunal had held that in view of the S.O No. 141 (E) Notification dated 15.01.2016 all mining leases have to obtain the Environmental Clearance to operate the quarry. There was a review application in R.A. No. 07 of 2020 was filed against the above Judgement dated 30.06.2020 which was dismissed on 18.08.2020. Civil Appeal Nos. 1789-90 of 2021 were filed against the O.A. No. 136 of 2017 were also dismissed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court on 23.07.2021.
National Green Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - K Satyagopal - Full Document

Sibi Joseph vs Union Of India on 20 December, 2023

40. It is also stated that the SLP filed against the All-Kerala River Protection Council vs. State of Kerala was dismissed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court on 02.12.2016. On 30.06.2020 in O.A. No. 136 of 2017 this Tribunal had held that in view of the S.O No. 141 (E) Notification dated 15.01.2016 all mining leases have to obtain the Environmental Clearance to operate the quarry. There was a review application in R.A. No. 07 of 2020 was filed against the above Judgement dated 30.06.2020 which was dismissed on 18.08.2020. Civil Appeal Nos. 1789-90 of 2021 were filed against the O.A. No. 136 of 2017 were also dismissed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court on 23.07.2021.
National Green Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - K Satyagopal - Full Document

V.K.Velu vs Anil Kumar

The issue of whether the holder of a quarrying lease issued prior to 18.05.2012, and covering an extent of less than 5 Hectares, is required to obtain an environmental clearance certificate for W.P.(C).No.20532/2010 & con. Cases 33 continuing with his quarrying activities, has already been decided by a Division Bench of this court in All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala - [2015 (2) KLT 78], where it was held that such quarrying lease holders need obtain the environmental clearance certificate only when the lease comes up for renewal. Accordingly, following the said decision of this court, issue (iv) is answered in the negative and in favour of the quarrying leaseholders. In the result:
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A K Nambiar - Full Document

State Of Kerala, Rep. By Its Principal ... vs Shefy Joseph, D/O Late M.P.Joseph on 31 March, 2023

It is also contended that as on the date of filing of the writ petition, there were almost 90 mineral concession holders in the State of Kerala who had obtained mineral concession under the erstwhile Rules of 1967, i.e., prior to 18.05.2012 and they were permitted to continue their operation without obtaining environmental clearance based on the judgment in All Kerala River Protection Council case supra and subsequent cases. Based on the order by the Tribunal, now action has to be taken against those quarry owners also which will put various developmental activities undertaken in the State to serious difficulties and therefore they have approached this Court challenging the order passed by the National Green Tribunal.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

All Kerala River Protection Council vs State Of Kerala

3. The first group of Writ Petitions consists of 3 Public Interest Litigations, being W.P(C) Nos.31148 of 2014, 20601 of 2014 and 4471 of 2015. Writ Petition No.31148 of 2014 (All Kerala River Protection Council, Aluva v. State of Kerala and Others) is being treated as the leading Writ Petition among this group. It is necessary to note the pleadings and reliefs in the leading Writ Petition for considering and deciding the various issues raised in this bunch of Writ Petitions. Petitioner is an organisation registered with the main purpose of saving the environment of the State including all natural resources. This Public Interest Litigation claims to have been filed to protect the resources of the State from excessive mining operations being carried out in violation of the statutory provisions. W.P(C) No.31148 of 2014 & connected cases -: 5 :- It is pleaded that the excessive mining operations cause serious threat to the ecology.
Kerala High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document

M/S.Petra Crushers vs The State Environment Impact, ... on 12 April, 2024

11. Though I have referred to the judgments cited at the bar by both sides as also to the ratio of those judgments, for reasons already indicated, I do not intend to apply the ratio of any of the aforesaid judgments to the facts of this case. I am of the view that even if the doctrine of merger does not apply and even if the order of the Supreme Court is not 'law declared' for the purposes of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the principle of judicial discipline would require this Court to hold that the view taken by the NGT cannot be the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. This is principally because the facts of the case decided by the NGT and the facts of the present case are identical. The mining company (its partner) who was a party to the proceeding before the NGT and the petitioner herein were both issued with W.P.(C)No.29474/2023 27 mining leases before the cut-off date specified in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in All Kerala River Protection Council (supra).
Kerala High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - P Gopinath - Full Document

Shaila Nassar vs Uzhamalakkal Grama Panchayat

disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal, they were informed by the office of the Aryanadu Grama Panchayath that the panchayath has already taken proceedings as per the direction of the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions to restore the natural water channel, which was converted as private road by the petitioner herein. Ext.R3(f) is the copy of the said order. Now, it is well settled that for running a granite quarry, environmental clearance from the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority is a mandatory prerequisite (See the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala [2015 (2) KLT 78]).
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A V Pillai - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next