Dismissed

A.G Madhavan v. Geologist

Kerala HC14 Dec 2016WP(C)/3914/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a quarry operator seeking consideration of a letter from the Pollution Control Board. The Court held that quarrying cannot be carried out without an Environmental Clearance, which must be obtained from the State/District EIA Authority, not the PCB, and the petition for relief stands dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as it stands dismissed.

A.G Madhavan Vs Geologist — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 3914 of 2016 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

A.G.MADHAVAN, S/O LATE GOPINATHAN, AGED 39 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, VENGUNADU GRANITE & SANDS (P) LTD., ANAKETTIMEDU, GOVINDAPURAM POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,

¶11

DISTRICT OFFICE, PALAKKAD.

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,

¶13

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,

¶15

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

4. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTRO BOARD, REPRESENTED BY SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,

¶17

DISTRICT OFFICE, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶18

R1 TO R3 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MANURAJ R4 BY ADV. SRI. T.NAVEEN, SC, SRI. M.AJAY, SC,

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

sts

¶21

WP(C).No. 3914 of 2016 (L)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MINING PERMIT DATED 26.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT

¶25

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.1.2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN R.P.NO.46/2015 IN WPC NO.33590/2014.

¶26

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF CONSENT VARIATION ORDER DATED 5.5.2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.8.2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITHDRAWING EXT.P3 CONSENT VARIATION ORDER.

¶28

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.8.2015 PASSED BY THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.400/2013.

¶29

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.1.2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.1249/2016.

¶30

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.1.2016 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT GRANTING QUARRYING PERMIT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶31

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 27.1.2016 ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶32

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.1.2016 (WITHOUT ENCLOSURES) SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

W.P(C) No. 3914 of 2016 L

¶40

¶41

Dated this the 14^th day of December, 2016

¶42

J U D G M E N T

¶43

The petitioner seeks consideration of Ext.P8

¶44

application de hors Exts.P4, P5 and P9. The petitioner had

¶45

been issued with a quarrying permit, at Ext.P1, which contained a condition that the quarry can be operated after 09.01.2015 only with an Environmental Clearance (E.C).

¶46

The petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to consider issuance of EC by the Kerala State Pollution

¶47

Control Board (PCB). This Court directed consideration

¶48

and PCB issued Ext.P3 Consent Variation Order. The same

¶49

was however cancelled by Ext.P4, based on Ext.P5 order of

¶50

WPC.No.3914/2016

¶51

: 2 :

¶52

the National Green Tribunal.

¶53

The petitioner again approached this Court

¶54

based on an interim order of status quo passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.30103/2015. This Court

¶55

has in Joseph Mathew v. State of Kerala [2016 (3) KLT

¶56

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 SLP so filed against the judgment in All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala [2015

¶57

(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

¶58

has been incorporated in the Environmental Impact

¶59

WPC.No.3914/2016

¶60

: 3 :

¶61

Assessment Notification No. 2006 (SO 1533 E) dated 14.09.2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change; by S.O No. 141 (E) dtd. 15.01.2016. E.C hence is not to be issued by PCB and is to

¶62

be obtained from the State/District Environment Impact Assessment Authority. There can also be no quarrying carried out without an EC.

¶63

In such circumstance, the writ petition would

¶64

stand dismissed.

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)

¶67

jma //true copy//

¶68

P.A to Judge

A.G Madhavan v. Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.G Madhavan v. Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biji Vijayan Vs District Collector

Harid Vs Karunagappally Grama

A.J.Walston Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Kunjhimohammed Vs Thalikulam Grama Panchayath

Nawas.P.S Vs District Collector