Disposed

P.M.Elias v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 May 2016WP(C)/13674/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner sought removal of sand from an elevated hill threatening landslides. The Kerala High Court ordered the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee to inspect the property within two weeks to expedite the environmental clearance process by the SEIAA before the monsoon.

What did the court decide?

The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee is directed to inspect the property or get a report from the District Collector and file a report to the SEIAA within two weeks. The Authority must convene a

P.M.Elias Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2016/6TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No.13674 of 2016 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

P.M.ELIAS, S/O.PULLYATTU MATHAI, PALLYATTU HOUSE,PARINGARAPPALLY, MULAMTHURUTHY,KOCHI-682314. BY ADVS.SRI.T.B.THANKAPPAN SRI.T.T.HARIKUMAR SRI.ASHISH VIDYADHARAN.

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶9

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAMTHURUTHY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN:682314. 3. TAHASILDAR, KANAYANNOOR TALUK,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682011. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION,KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-682030. 5. THE GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN-682030. 6. THE DIRECTOR, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN-682030. 7.THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.

¶10

ADDITIONAL 8TH RESPONDENT IMPLEADED:-

¶11

ADDL.R8. THE STATE LEVEL EXPERT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PALLIMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURM.

¶12

***[ADDITIONAL 8TH RESPONDENT IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER THE JUDGMENT IN THE WRIT PETITION, DATED 27.05.2016]**

¶13

R1 TO R8 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.13674 of 2016 (H)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶18

P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 13.O8.2015.

¶19

P2 THE LETTER ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24.08.2015 ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶20

P3 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.10.2015 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT REQUESTING THE GEOLOGIST TO TAKE URGENT STEPS IN THE MATTER AS PER KERALA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION ACT AND RULES.

¶21

P4 LETTER DATED 06.01.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT GRANTING THE PERMISSION TO THE PETITIONER FOR MINING.

¶22

P5 ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 03.02.2016.

¶23

P6 RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RS.75,000 DATED 03.02.2016.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶25

NIL.

¶26

Vku/[ true copy ]

¶27

K. Vinod Chandran, J

¶28

---------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.13674 of 2016-H

¶29

¶30

Dated this the 27^th day of May, 2016

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner is concerned with the environmental

¶33

clearance sought for from the 7^th respondent for removal of sand from 91.40 Ares of property in Re-survey No.140/1, Block No.24 of Mulamthuruthy Village. The petitioner, who is the title holder and in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property, submits that the said land stands in an elevated position, having around 6 meters height and 14 meters length. The said hillock causes perpetual threat to the life and properties of the neighbours, especially during rainy season since the texture of the soil is of such a nature as to cause erosion and landslides during the rainy season.

¶34

The Village Officer, by Exhibit P1 report dated 13.08.2015 after inspection of the properties, has recommended that the sand be removed from the said elevated

¶35

piece of land. The Tahsildar has also written to the District Collector about the threat caused by the property of the

¶36

WP(C) No.13674 of 2016 - 2 -

¶37

petitioner and the District Collector has informed the Geologist as per Exhibit P3. However, later, the District Collector expressed an apprehension whether the removal of earth could be affected without an environmental clearance from the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. Hence, the petitioner filed an application before the 7^th respondent , acknowledged by Exhibit P5.

¶38

The learned Government Pleader submits that, going by Exhibits P1 to P4 there seems to be a threat involved in the matter. However, it is submitted that numerous applications are pending before the 7^th respondent and they are taking up the issues one-by-one in accordance with the date of filing. In fact, this Court has also directed such consideration to be made in accordance with the priority of applications.

¶39

Be that as it may, this seems to be an apt case where the consideration could be directed expeditiously, especially since there is a real apprehension of land slide; especially with the advent of the monsoon. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that State Level Expert Appraisal Committee would have to first verify the facts stated by the

¶40

WP(C) No.13674 of 2016 - 3 -

¶41

petitioner in the writ petition and only on its report could the 7^th respondent-authority consider the issue of grant of environmental clearance certificate. In such circumstance, “The State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, represented by its Chairman, Pallimukku, Thiruvananthapuram”, is impleaded suo motu as the additional 8^th respondent. The said Committee is directed to inspect the property or get a report from the District Collector and file a report to the Kerala State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. On receipt of the same, the Kerala State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority shall convene a meeting specially within two weeks therefrom, if no regular meeting is convened within the two weeks time, for the purpose of considering the matter and decide upon the same expeditiously.

¶42

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶43

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶44

Vku/-

¶45

[true copy]

P.M.Elias v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M.Elias v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Linto V.C. Vs v.S.Senthil IAS

Purushothaman C.P Vs K.K.Jalan

Thankappan P.K. Vs the Secretary, Valokom Grama Panchayat

Namitha Bhas Vs the M.G.University

M/S.Three Star Granites Vs the Chairman, Seiac, Kerala

The Kerala Electrical Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner