Disposed

Biju Jose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Nov 2019WP(C)/7728/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought directions to compel the SEIAA to consider and dispose of his objection against quarrying activities. The High Court of Kerala directed the SEIAA to hear both parties and dispose of the representation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 4th respondent (SEIAA) to take up Ext.P6, hear the petitioner and 12th respondent, and dispose of the matter within two months.

Biju Jose Vs State of Kerala — 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

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.7728 OF 2019(M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BIJU JOSE, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O JOSE, KUREETHADAM HOUSE, VETTAMPARA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM-686681.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.JOSE ANTONY SRI.S.SHIV SHANKAR

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695024.

¶12

3 THE DIRECTOR MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶13

4 THE KERALA STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY,

¶14

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE, PALLIMUKKU, PETTHA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695024.

¶15

5 THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES A AND D WING, BLOCK 1-8, 2ND FLOOR SASTRI BHAVAN, 26HADDOUS ROAD, NUMGAMPAKKAM, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600006.

¶16

6 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE-2, 1ST FLOOR, MANALIKUDI ARCADE (MANNA RESIDENCY), M.C. ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULM-683542.

¶17

WP(C).No.7728 OF 2019

¶18

-2-

¶19

7 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶20

8 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD-682030.

¶21

9 TH CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS PRIYADARSINI NAGAR, PARAVATTANI, THRISSUR-680005.

¶22

10 THE SECRETARY PINDIMANA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PINDIMANA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM-686692.

¶23

11 THE SECRETARY KOTTAPPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTTAPPADY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM-686691.

¶24

12 JOSE MATHEW

¶25

ARANJANIYIL HOUSE, CHELAD P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM-686691.

¶26

R10 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY R12 BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN PHILIP R12 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOSE GP N.B.SUNILNATH; SC FOR R4 M.P.SREEKRISHNAN

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

WP(C).No.7728 OF 2019

¶29

-3-

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Dated this the 22nd day of November 2019

¶32

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶33

seeking that objection preferred by him before the 4^th respondent - Kerala State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) be directed to be taken up and disposed of. He says that his objection, namely Ext.P6, is directed against the quarrying operation being carried on by the 12^th respondent and that he will be able to convince the SIEAA that the said respondent must not be allowed to conduct any quarrying activity.

¶34

The learned Standing Counsel for the 4^th respondent SIEAA, Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, submits that there is no legal impediment in Ext.P6 being taken up and disposed of and he adds

¶35

that this is all the more pertinent because the

¶36

application of the 12^th respondent for an

¶37

Environmental Clearance appears to be still

¶38

WP(C).No.7728 OF 2019

¶39

-4-

¶40

pending. He says that even if such a Clearance has been granted by the SIEAA, the petitioner's objections can still be considered under the post Environmental Clearance monitoring regime.

¶41

In the afore circumstances, without

¶42

entering into the merits of the contentions of the rival parties, I order this writ petition and

¶43

direct the 4^th respondent to take up Ext.P6 representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same, after hearing him as also the 12^th respondent, and after following due procedure, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 4^th respondent will thereafter communicate the resultant order to the petitioner as well as the 12^th respondent without any

¶44

avoidable delay.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

¶49

WP(C).No.7728 OF 2019

¶50

-5-

¶51

APPENDIX

¶52

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 12TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶54

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT SHOWING THE PROPOSED QUARRY BY THE 12TH RESPONDENT

¶55

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.2.2018 OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT OF THE AREA APPLIED FOR QUARRYING LEASE DATED 26.2.2018

¶56

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID LETTER OF INTENT DATED 5.5.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT 1 TO 9

¶57

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE 10TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE 11TH RESPONDENT

¶58

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Biju Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju Jose v. State of Kerala

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

Salmathul Shamseera, Vs the Local Level Monitoring Committee

Jyothi Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rehim Vs the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

St Josephs Convent Vs State of Kerala

Binitha Anilkumar Vs Kandanassery Grama Panchayath

Aboobacker Machingal Vs Malappuram Municipality