The petitioner challenged the requirement of Environmental Clearance for smaller quarries. The court held that EC is mandatory under the EIA Notification 2006 and reliance on earlier rules was rendered illegal by a Division Bench. The writ petition was dismissed.
The writ petition was dismissed; no costs awarded.
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
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 8282 of 2016 (I)
PETITIONER(S):
C.P. THOMAS,
CHIRAKANDATH HOUSE, P.O. OORAKAM, MELMURI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR, STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676 505.
4. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM- 676 505.
R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.J. MANURAJ. R4 BY ADVS. SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, SRI. M.AJAY, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 8282 of 2016 (I)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
K. Vinod Chandran, J
---------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.8282 of 2016-I
---------------------------------------Dated this the 19th day of December, 2016
JUDGMENT
The writ petition has been filed challenging the insistence
made by the Geologist of the Department of Mining and Geology for Environmental Clearance [for brevity “EC”] to carry on quarry operations. The petitioner claims that for quarries with less than 5 hectares extent, there is no requirement for an EC.
v. State of Haryana [(2012) 4 SCC 629] and has been incorporated in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 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. The short-term permits issued by the Department of Geology, within the State of Kerala based on the provisions in the
WP(C) No.8282 of 2016 - 2 -
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.
In such circumstance, the writ petition would stand
dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge
vku/-
[ true copy ]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a quarrying permit can be carried out without Environmental Clearance (EC).
Whether the insistence by the Geologist for EC is lawful under the EIA Notification of 2006.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Deepak Kumar v. State of HaryanaDistinguished¶37
Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana [(2012) 4 SCC 629] · Who else cites this
All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of KeralaDistinguished¶38
All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala [2015 (2) KLT 78]
3 provisions across 3 enactments
C.P. Thomas
State of Kerala
The Director, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority
The Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology
The Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board
K. Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
