Dismissed

Binoj K. Baby v. the District Collector, Wayanad

Kerala HC20 Dec 2016WP(C)/7575/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged stop memos issued for alleged violations of prohibited distance norms regarding quarries, but admitted lacking Environmental Clearance. The court held that quarrying without EC is illegal post-Deepak Kumar and the KMMC Rules are void.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the operating quarries lacked mandatory Environmental Clearance.

Binoj K. Baby Vs the District Collector, Wayanad — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 7575 of 2016 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

BINOJ K. BABY AGED 30 YEARS S/O.K.K. CHERIAN, MANAGING PARTNER, PULPALLY STONE CRUSHER, SASIMALA P.O., WAYANAD - 673 579.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD

¶11

2. THE TAHSILDAR, SULTHAN BATHERY - 673 592.

¶12

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PADICHIRA - 673 579.

¶13

4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR) WAYANAD.

¶14

5. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, WAYANAD.

¶15

R1-4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI RENIL ANTO(SR) R5 BY ADV. SRI.B.PRASANTH, SC, POLUTION CONTROL BOARD R5 BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN.T

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 7575 of 2016 (V)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1-TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMTI NO. 37/2015-16/MM/GS/DO2/M1112/2015 DATED 14/10/2015 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER

¶21

P2-TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT NO. 43/2015-16/MM/GS/DOW2/M1113/2015 DATED 19/10/2015 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER

¶22

P3-TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER

¶23

P4-TRUE COPY OF THE D & O LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER

¶24

P5-TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 18/09/2015 PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶25

P6-TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 11/11/2015 PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶26

P7-TRUE COPY OF THE TOPO SKETCH PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶27

P8-TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTED 17/09/2015 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶28

P9-TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 03/10/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶29

P10-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/10/2015 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶30

P11-TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 13/10/2015 FROM MULLAMKOLLI PANCHAYATH

¶31

P12-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/11/2015 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶32

P13-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/01/2016 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESOPNDENT ADDRESSED TO THE IST RESPONDENT

¶33

P14-TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 17/02/2016 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT P15-TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 17/02/2016 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

jma

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

W.P(C) No. 7575 of 2016 V

¶40

¶41

Dated this the 20^th day of December, 2016

¶42

The petitioner challenged Exts.P14 and P15 stop

¶43

memos issued by the Tahasildar for reason of the quarries

¶44

being carried on, within the prohibited distance from a public

¶45

road. The learned Counsel submits that the said ground is

¶46

factually incorrect. However, the petitioner admits that the

¶47

petitioner does not have an Environmental Clearance.

¶48

As of now for obtaining a quarrying permit an

¶49

Environmental Clearance (EC) under the EIA notification of

¶50

2006 is imperative. The requirement for EC emanates from

¶51

Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2012) 4 SCC 629] and has

¶52

been incorporated in the Environmental Impact Assessment

¶53

WPC.No.7575/2016

¶54

: 2 :

¶55

(EIA) Notification No.2006 (SO 1533 E) dated 14.09.2006 issued

¶56

by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change; by S.O No. 141 (E) dtd. 15.01.2016. The short-term permits issued by the Department of Geology, within the State of Kerala based on the provisions in the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules of 2015 (for brevity KMMC Rules), were found to be illegal by a Division Bench of this Court in All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala [2015 (2) KLT 78]. The SLP filed against the said judgment, numbered as SLP 30103 of 2015, has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 02.12.2016. Hence no quarrying can be carried out without an EC.

¶57

In such circumstance, the writ petition would stand

¶58

dismissed. No costs.

¶59

Sd/(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy//

¶60

P.A to Judge

Binoj K. Baby v. the District Collector, Wayanad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binoj K. Baby v. the District Collector, Wayanad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marath Enterprises and Crushers Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

V.M.Moideenjkutty Vs the District Geologist

C.P.Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Shamsudheen Vs the District Collector

Vikram Sarabhai Science Foundation Vs State of Kerala

Joseph P.V. Vs State of Kerala