Petitioner challenged rejection of extension for environmental clearance to remove ordinary earth. Court held initial extension was effectively nil due to service delay. Directing second respondent to grant extension after hearing.
Writ petition allowed; direction to grant extension after hearing; petitioner to produce judgment copy for compliance.
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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/18TH KARTHIKA, 1939
WP(C).No. 35191 of 2017 (Y)
PETITIONER(S):
SHAJAHAN RAWTHUR AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. HAMEED RAWTHUR, VALYAKARINGATTIL HOUSE, ERUMAKKADU P.O, VALLANA MURI, KIDANGANOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 532
BY ADVS.SRI.T.B.HOOD
SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR SMT.M.ISHA
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHEIF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
2. STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY,KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY DEVI KRIPA, PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024
3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645
4. SENIOR GEOLOGIST
5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER(CONSTRUCTION) SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014
R5 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.K.J.MANURAJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CONTD....
:2:
WP(C).No. 35191 of 2017 (Y)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE NO 127/2015/OE DATED 16-01-2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27-10-2016 SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04-01-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXTENDING THE VALIDITY OF EXT.P1 ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-02-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXTENDING THE PERIOD OF VALIDITY OF EXT.P1 FOR SIX MONTHS
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02-08-2017 SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25-09-2017 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO 29848/2017
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-10-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL -----------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
SKS
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
==================
W.P.(C.) No.35191 of 2017
Dated this the 9th day of November, 2017
JUDGMENT
Petitioner applied to the second respondent for Environmental Clearance for removal of ordinary earth for a construction activity of the Southern Railway. On 16.01.2016, as per Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has been granted Environmental Clearance for removal of 50,000 cubic meters of ordinary earth. The term of Ext.P1 Environmental Clearance expired on 15.07.2016. As the petitioner could not remove the entire quantity of ordinary earth permitted to be removed in terms of Ext.P1 order, he moved the second respondent for extension of the term fixed in Ext.P1 order. Though the extension sought by the
2
W.P.(C.) No.35191/2017
petitioner has been granted on 04.01.2017 as per Ext.P3 order, it is stated that the said order was served on the petitioner only on 07.01.2017. The term of Ext.P3 order was only till 15.01.2017. According to the petitioner, within the said short period, he could not remove the quantity of ordinary earth permitted in terms of Ext.P3 order also. The petitioner, therefore, preferred another application for extension of the term of the Environmental Clearance. Ext.P4 is the order passed on the said application. The term of Ext.P4 order expired on 18.08.2017. In Ext.P4 order, it is stated that the petitioner will not be granted further extension. The case of the petitioner is that he could not remove the entire quantity permitted in terms of Ext.P4 order also and as such, he submitted another application for extension of the term of the Environmental Clearance. The said application has been rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P7 order stating, among others, that it has been
3
W.P.(C.) No.35191/2017
stated in Ext.P4 order itself that further extension will not be
granted. Ext.P4 order, to the extent it provides that the petitioner will not be entitled to move for further extension of the Environmental Clearance, and Ext.P7 order, are under challenge in this writ petition.
the learned Standing Counsel for Railways as also the learned Government Pleader.
4
W.P.(C.) No.35191/2017
In the said view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to grant the extension sought by the petitioner in his application referred to in Ext.P7. The term of the extension shall be fixed by the second respondent after affording the petitioner as also the
5
W.P.(C.) No.35191/2017
representatives of Railways an opportunity of hearing. This shall be done in the next meeting of the second respondent. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment for compliance before the second respondent.
Sd/-
SKS
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE
(true copy)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petitioner is entitled to further extension of the term for removal of ordinary earth despite administrative rejection?
Whether the short period in the first extension and the time taken to serve rendered the term practically no extension?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shajahan Rawthur
State of Kerala
The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Kerala
District Collector, Pathanamthitta
Senior Geologist
Assst. Executive Engineer
P.B. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
