Partly allowed

Annamma Baby v. the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority(Seiaa)

Kerala HC14 Nov 2018WP(C)/20145/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the rejection of an environmental clearance application submitted by the petitioner. The Court found that the reasons for rejection did not match the purpose stated in the application. Consequently, the order was quashed regarding the petitioner, and a direction was issued for reconsideration. (79 words)

What did the court decide?

Quashment of Ext.P7 order to the extent it concerns the petitioner; Direction to 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 application within three months.

Annamma Baby Vs the State Environment Impact… — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 20145 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

ANNAMMA BABY AGED 63, W/O.LATE BABY, CHERUPALAKKATTU HOUSE,CHUVANNAMANNU P.O., PANAMCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 652.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY(SEIAA) KERALA, DEVI KRIPA, PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR 680 001.

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS CHAIR PERSON,COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR 680 001.

¶13

4 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST THRISSUR, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR 680 020.

¶14

GOVERNMENT PLEADER K.J. MANURAJ

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 20145 of 2018

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Petitioner is the owner of a parcel of property situate in Survey No.355/12 of Panamchery Village, Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur District, specifically recited in Column 3 of Ext.P3 application. Petitioner has sought issuance of environmental clearance from the 2^nd respondent for the removal of ordinary earth, which was rejected as per Ext.P7 order dated 23.8.2017, along with other applications submitted by various persons. Clause 3 deals with the property belonging to the petitioner, in which it is stated as follows:

¶20

“The committee visited the above proposed project site on 22/8/2017 and found that the proponent has no specific reason for mining the ordinary earth from the above area and the committee found that a quarrying permit was already issued from the office of the Geologist, as per the Environmental Clearance of SEIAA and High Court Order, for extraction of Environmental Clearance of SEIAA and High Court Order for extraction of 5000 M3 of ordinary earth for making the site suitable for installation of IOC Petrol Pump and the adjacent land has already made fit for the above purpose. Hence the committee decided not to appraise the proposal.”

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that the conclusion arrived at by the 2^nd respondent cannot be sustained under law, and not in commensurate with Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner.

¶22

WP(C).No. 20145 of 2018

¶23

¶24

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶25

After taking me through Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that reasons assigned in Ext.P7, is not tallying with the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 application. In Ext.P3 application, the reason for removal of ordinary earth is shown as, the particular gradient of the property, and the purpose for which it is to be utilised, is shown as, construction of bund. However, 2^nd respondent has taken the decision on the basis of the removal of ordinary earth for the purpose of construction of an IOC out let.

¶26

In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that, being arbitrary and without application of mind, Ext.P7 requires interference to that extent, and a direction is to be issued for reconsideration of Ext.P3 application in accordance with law.

¶27

Having evaluated the situation, I quash Ext.P7 to the extent, it is concerning the petitioner as per serial No.3 specifically mentioned above, and direct the 2^nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 application in accordance with law, taking note of the observations made above, at the

¶28

WP(C).No. 20145 of 2018

¶29

¶30

earliest and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶31

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Jm/

WP(C).No. 20145 of 2018

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26/4/2016 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 1/1/2016 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTORATE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLIMATE CHANGE DATED 25/3/2017 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE KERALA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED DATED 13/3/2017 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA GIVEN BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED NIL EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 9/3/2017 EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN THE MEETING HELD ON 23/8/2017

Annamma Baby v. the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority(Seiaa)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annamma Baby v. the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority(Seiaa)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

James K Mathew Vs Angamaly Village Officer

Thilakan V.K. Vs District Collector

Periyar Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Treasa Jose Vs the District Collector

C.Anil Kumar Vs the Secretary, Kunnamangalam Grama Panchayath

Karthikeyan Vs the Secretary