Dismissed

Dileep.S v. Rahuleyan Pillai

Kerala HC9 Dec 2019WP(C)/14175/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a joint inspection by respondents before SEIAA granted quarry environmental clearance. The court, citing statutory non-mandate, dismissed the plea for joint inspection and closed the writ, preserving liberty for SEIAA to decide per its statutes.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed without granting relief; petitioner reserved liberty to approach Panchayat for Trade Licence after obtaining SEIAA clearance.

Dileep.S Vs Rahuleyan Pillai — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.14175 OF 2019(V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DILEEP.S., INDEEVARAM, NARIKKAL P.O, PUNALUR, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 RAHULEYAN PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, ORIPURATH QUARRY, ORIPURATHU MALA, SHIVAGIRI ESTATE, NARIKKAL, P.O PUNALUR, KOLLAM, KERALA, RESIDING AT BHAVANI MANDIRAM, PUNCHIRIMUKKU, YERROOR, ANCHAL, KOLLAM - 691 306.

¶11

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM, KOLAM DISTRICT - 691 001.

¶12

3 PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, KARAVALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARAVALOOR, KOLLAM - 691 333.

¶13

4 DIRECTOR MINING AND GEOLOGY KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.

¶14

5 CHAIRMAN, STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, THAMPANOOR, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

¶15

6 ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KOLLAM DISTRICT, BAZAR ROAD, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶16

7 THE GEOLOGIST, KOLLAM DISTRICT, OFFICE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KOLLAM, - 691 001.

¶17

SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS SC SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN GP K.J.MANURAJ; SC FOR SEIAA M.P.SREEKRISHNAN; SC FOR PCB T.NAVEEN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No.14175 OF 2019(V)

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the fifth respondent - State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) - is yet to grant Environmental Clearance to the first respondent and prays that a joint inspection of the area attempted to be quarried by the said respondent be directed to be done by respondents 2 to 7, before granting any such clearance. The petitioner says that he has also preferred Ext.P5 representation before the Committee of the Karavaloor Panchayat and prays that the same be directed to be taken up by them and disposed of at the earliest.

¶23

Sri.M.K.Chandramohandas, the learned counsel

¶24

appearing for the first respondent, in response to the above, submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable because the manner in which the SEIAA has to consider an application for Environmental Clearance is delineated by the various applicable Notifications and Statutes and that the petitioner cannot demand that it be done in a particular manner. He says that it is unheard of in law that, while processing an application for Environmental Clearance by the SEIAA,

¶25

WP(C).No.14175 OF 2019(V)

¶26

¶27

respondents 2 to 4 and 6 and 7 must be heard or that a joint inspection be done by them and that the prayer so made by the petitioner clearly is contrary to the provisions relating to the statutory powers of the SEIAA.

¶28

As regards Ext.P5 representation is concerned, Sri.M.K.Chandramohandas says that the stage of its consideration has not yet arrived, since the same has been preferred before the Committee of the Panchayat and that it cannot be considered by them at this stage.

¶29

Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, the learned standing counsel for the fifth respondent - SEIAA, submitted that he does not have specific instructions as to whether the application of the first respondent for Environmental Clearance is pending or whether it has already been disposed of. He says that, in any event of the matter, the SEIAA will follow the applicable and imperative statutory procedure while disposing it of in terms of law; but asserts that the request of the petitioner for a joint inspection of the quarrying site by respondents 2 to 7, before the SEIAA takes a decision on the said application, is completely untenable and contrary to the provisions of law.

¶30

WP(C).No.14175 OF 2019(V)

¶31

¶32

He, therefore, prays that this prayer of the petitioner be rejected.

¶33

The learned standing counsel appearing for the Grama Panchayat initially sought time to file counter pleadings; but thereafter submitted that, as and when the petitioner approaches them for a Trade Licence in terms of law - after obtaining all the necessary clearances and consents from the competent Authorities including the SEIAA - the petitioner's application, namely Ext.P5, can be considered. He says, therefore, that no further orders may be issued in this writ petition against his client.

¶34

When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that the petitioner's primary plea is that before the SEIAA issues an Environmental Clearance to the first respondent, respondents 2 to 4 and 6 and 7 must make a joint inspection of the quarrying site. I am afraid that I cannot accede to this contention at all since, as rightly stated by Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan - the learned counsel for the SEIAA, the applicable provisions do not mandate any such procedure and the SEIAA is enjoined to act within the perimeter of the

¶35

WP(C).No.14175 OF 2019(V)

¶36

¶37

jurisdiction vested with them under the applicable Statutes and Regulations.

¶38

That said, the question of consideration of Ext.P5 also

¶39

does not arise now, since, as has been pointed out by Sri.M.K.Chandramohandas above, it has been preferred before the Committee of the Panchayat and the consideration of the same will become relevant only when the issuance of the Trade Licence is considered by them on the strength of the Environmental Clearance to be obtained by the petitioner; and that too in terms of the declaration of law by the Full Bench of this Court in Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala [2019 (3) KLT 987 (FB)].

¶40

Resultantly, I close this writ petition without granting any of the reliefs prayed for; however, leaving full liberty to the SEIAA to take a decision on the application of the first respondent, if any, as per the applicable provisions of the relevant Statutes and Notifications and then take an appropriate decision thereon, without any avoidable delay.

¶41

Once the first respondent is able to obtain necessary Environmental Clearance from the SEIAA, he will be at liberty

¶42

WP(C).No.14175 OF 2019(V)

¶43

¶44

to approach the Secretary of the Panchayat for Trade Licence; in which event, the said Authority will consider Ext.P5 and hear the parties, thus leading to an appropriate decision to be taken thereon, however, strictly adverting to the declaration of law by this Court in Tomy Thomas (supra).

¶45

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

stu

¶48

WP(C).No.14175 OF 2019(V)

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶52

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF KARAVALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶53

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT GIVEN FROM 6TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT GIVEN FROM CHIEF MINISTERS OFFICE. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT GIVEN FROM THE FOREST MINISTERS OFFICE.

¶54

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHER PUBLIC ON BEHALF OF ACTION COUNCIL.

¶55

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶56

//TRUE COPY//

¶57

P.A TO JUDGE.

Dileep.S v. Rahuleyan Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep.S v. Rahuleyan Pillai

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

T.Radhakrishnan Vs the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation

Jayasree.K.N, Vs Cheranelloor Grama Panchayath

Sajeeda Beevi Vs Pathanamthitta Municipality

Govindankutty, Vs State of Kerala

St.Antony S Latin Catholic Church Vs State of Kerala

Renjith.S Vs the Kottayam Municipality, Represented by Its Secretary