The court dismissed the writ petition challenging a notice. It held that quarrying requires an Environmental Clearance under Deepak Kumar and relevant notifications. Since the petitioner's permit expired and no EC existed, the petition failed.
The writ petition was dismissed, making it clear that no quarry shall be permitted without EC.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 3588 of 2014 (W)
PETITIONER(S):
M.V.GEORGE, AGED 61 YEARS,
S/O.VARKEY, RESIDING AT MANIYATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, KAKKATTOOR, AAYAVANA, ENANALLUR P.O., VARAPETTI, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.JUVAIZE MUHAMMED
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, ANNEXE, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.
2. GEOLOGIST,
MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030.
BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RENIL ANTO
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 3588 of 2014 (W)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.234/212-13/MM/GS/CRPS/DOE/ 1328/E2/13 DATED 21/3/2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESSPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBIT :
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
msv/
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
===================== W.P.(C) No.3588 of 2014 - W
====================== Dated this the 07th day of December, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner challenging Ext.P4 notice. The
petitioner's permit in any event expired on 21.03.2014.
Kerala [2016 (3) KLT 102] held that the interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.30103 of 2015 granting status quo is of no consequence with respect to the issuance of quarrying permit. The civil appeal so filed against the judgment in All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of
Kerala [2015 (2) KLT 78] has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The requirement for EC emanates from Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2012) 4 SCC 629] and has been incorporated in the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification No. 2006 (SO 1533EE) dated 14.09.20016 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests
..2..
W.P.(C) No.3588 of 2014 - W
and Climate Change; by S.O No. 141 (E) dtd. 15.01.2016. Hence no quarrying can be carried out without an EC.
For all the above reasons, the writ petition is
dismissed, making it clear that no quarry shall be permitted to be carried on without EC.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN,
JUDGE
SB/07/12/2016
// true copy //
P.A to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a quarry permit issued without an Environmental Clearance (EC) is valid in light of the statutory requirement for EC.
Whether the petitioner can continue quarrying operations after the expiration of the permit without obtaining a fresh EC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Joseph Mathew v. State of KeralaReferred¶37
Joseph Mathew v. State of Kerala [2016 (3) KLT 102]
All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of KeralaReferred¶38
All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala [2015 (2) KLT 78]
Deepak Kumar v. State of HaryanaExplained¶39
Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2012) 4 SCC 629] · Who else cites this
M.V. George
State of Kerala
Geologist
K. Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
K. Vinod Chandran
Parties & counsel
