Disposed

L.Saiju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jan 2021RP/17/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Stone-quarry operators sought review of continued distance restrictions pending fresh consideration by the NGT. The court rejected the review grounds but disposed of the petitions with a clarification permitting consideration of ancillary licence and clearance renewals for operators holding valid quarrying permits or leases when the NGT order was passed.

What did the court decide?

Clarified that authorities may consider ancillary permission, licence and clearance renewals or revalidation for operators holding valid quarrying permits or leases on 21.07.2020.

L.Saiju Vs State of Kerala — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942

¶5

RP.No.1 OF 2021 IN WP(C)NO.17391/2020

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2020 IN WP(C)NO.17391/2020(Y) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

SACHU RAJAN EAPEN, KALLUVILA ESTATE, MURINJAKAL P.O., KOODAL, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 693.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL SMT.DIVYA SARA GEORGE SMT.JAISY ELZA JOE

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTAM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶13

3 CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PARIVESH BHAWAN, EAST ARJUN NAGAR, DELHI-110032, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶14

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶15

¶16

4 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PLAMOODU JUNCTION, PATTAM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶17

5 SRI.M.HARIDASAN, S/O.MUTHAN, KONNAKKALKADAVU HOUSE, KORENCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD-678684.

¶18

6 STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA), 4TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL BUILDING, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶19

7 THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, MINI CIVIL STATION, ARANMULA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689533.

¶20

SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD SRI.M.AJAY SC, CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ADV.SRI.V.HARISH SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SC SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN ADDL AG SRI.S.KANNAN SPL.GP

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2021, ALONG WITH RP.17/2021, RP.22/2021, RP.37/2021, RP.39/2021, RP.40/2021, RP.52/2021, RP.53/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶23

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶27

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942

¶28

RP.No.17 OF 2021 IN WP(C)NO.21566/2020

¶29

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2020 IN WP(C)NO.21566/2020(U) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶30

REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

¶31

1 L.SAIJU, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.K.LEKSHMANAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. K.LEKSHMANAN COMPANY INFRASTRUCTURES AND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., (KLC AND IPL), AKKAVILA, KOLLAM-690 011.

¶32

2 SAJIL SATHEEK, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.L.SATHEEK, RESIDING AT AKKAVILA HOUSE, NO.200, SREE SARAVANA NAGAR, ERAVIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM, KERALA-691 011.

¶33

BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR

¶34

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶35

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶36

2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,

¶37

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶38

¶39

PATTAM PALACE P.O., KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶40

3 THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PARIVESH BHAWAN, MAHARISHI VALKMIKI MARG, EAST ARJUN NAGAR, VISHWAS NAGAR EXTENSION, VISWAS NAGAR, SHAHDRA, DELHI-110 032, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶41

4 THE STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, FLAT NO.H/6TH FLOOR, KESHAVADASAPURAM, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶42

5 HARIDAS.M., S/O.MUTHAN, KONNAKKALKADAVU HOUSE, KORANCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD-678 684.

¶43

SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶44

SRI.M.AJAY SC, CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶45

ADV.SRI.V.HARISH SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SC SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN ADDL AG SRI.S.KANNAN SPL.GP

¶46

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2021, ALONG WITH RP.1/2021, RP.22/2021, RP.37/2021, RP.39/2021, RP.40/2021, RP.52/2021, RP.53/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶48

¶49

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶50

PRESENT

¶51

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶52

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942

¶53

RP.No.22 OF 2021 IN WP(C)NO.16864/2020

¶54

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2020 IN WP(C)NO. 16864/2020(G) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶55

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶56

MRS.BETTY BIJU, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. LATE BIJU AUGUSTINE, PULIYANANICKAL HOUSE, ARAKULAM(PO), IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 591

¶57

BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY

¶58

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶59

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶60

2 THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, PARIVESH BHAVAN, MAHARSHI VALMIKI BHAVAN, VALMIKI MARG, EAST ARJUN NAGAR, VISWAS NAGAR EXTENSION, SHARADA, NEW-DELHI-110 032.

¶61

3 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, PATTOM PALACE P.O., KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶62

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶63

¶64

4 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, PATTOM PALACE (PO), KESAVADASAPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶65

5 THE GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY IDUKKI DISTRICT OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, THODUPUZHA(PO), IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 584.

¶66

SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶67

SRI.M.AJAY SC, CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶68

SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SC SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN ADDL AG SRI.S.KANNAN SPL.GP

¶69

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2021, ALONG WITH RP.1/2021, RP.17/2021, RP.37/2021, RP.39/2021, RP.40/2021, RP.52/2021, RP.53/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶70

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶71

¶72

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶73

PRESENT

¶74

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶75

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942

¶76

RP.No.37 OF 2021 IN WP(C)NO.22019/2020

¶77

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2020 IN WP(C)NO. 22019/2020(B) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶78

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶79

BINU CHERIAN, THAKKIRICKAL HOUSE, CHELAD P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM

¶80

BY ADVS. SHRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SMT.SAJITHA GEORGE

¶81

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶82

1 CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PARIVESH BHAVAN, EAST ARJUN NAGAR, DELHI-110 032, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶83

2 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PLAMOODU JUNCTION, PATTAM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶84

3 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, MALAPPURAM, MINI CIVIL STATION, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM-676 121.

¶85

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶86

¶87

4 THE DIRECTOR, MINING AND GEOLOGY DIRECTORATE, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 004.

¶88

5 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶89

6 MINISTRY OF MINES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAVAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶90

7 INDIAN BUREAU OF MINES, MINISTRY OF MINES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 2ND FLOOR, INDIRA BHAVAN, CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR, PIN-440 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶91

8 M.HARIDASAN, KONNAKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKECHERRY, PALAKKAD, KERALA-678 684.

¶92

SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶93

SRI.M.AJAY SC, CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ADV.SRI.V.HARISH SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SC SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN ADDL AG SRI.S.KANNAN SPL.GP

¶94

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2021, ALONG WITH RP.1/2021, RP.17/2021, RP.22/2021, RP.39/2021, RP.40/2021, RP.52/2021, RP.53/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶95

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶96

¶97

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶98

PRESENT

¶99

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶100

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942

¶101

RP.No.39 OF 2021 IN WP(C)NO.16474/2020

¶102

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2020 IN WP(C)NO.16474/2020(H) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶103

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶104

M/S.PEE GEE AGGREGATES PVT.LTD, 11/165, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP, AGED 37 YEARS, THEKKA NEDUMPLACKAL,MALLAPPALLY WEST.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶105

BY ADVS. SRI.P.HARIDAS SRI.BIJU HARIHARAN SRI.RENJI GEORGE CHERIAN SRI.P.C.SHIJIN SRI.RISHIKESH HARIDAS

¶106

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶107

1 STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT AUTHORITY(SEIAA, KERALA), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 4TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶108

2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.

¶109

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶110

¶111

3 CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARIVESH BHAVAN, EAST ARUJUN NAGAR, DELHI-110032.

¶112

4 POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY MEMBER SECRETARY, PLAMOODU JUNCTION, PATTOM PALACE.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.

¶113

5 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA,PIN-689645.

¶114

6 DISTRICT GEOLOGIST PATHANAMTHITTA, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, PATHANAMTHITTA,PIN-689645.

¶115

7 SECRETARY, KOTTANGAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KOTTANGAL,PIN-686547.

¶116

8 SRI.M.HARIDASAN, S/O.MUTHAN, KONNAKKAL KADAVU HOUSE, KORANCHIRA.P.O, PALAKKAD,PIN-678684.

¶117

SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶118

SRI.M.AJAY SC, CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶119

ADV.SRI.V.HARISH SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SC SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN ADDL AG SRI.S.KANNAN SPL.GP

¶120

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2021, ALONG WITH RP.1/2021, RP.17/2021, RP.22/2021, RP.37/2021, RP.40/2021, RP.52/2021, RP.53/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶121

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶122

¶123

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶124

PRESENT

¶125

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶126

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942

¶127

RP.No.40 OF 2021 IN WP(C)NO.16953/2020

¶128

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2020 IN WP(C)NO. 16953/2020(T) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶129

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶130

R. MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 53 YEARS, KEERTHI BHAVAN, KADAKKODE P.O, KOLLAM - 691505.

¶131

BY ADVS. SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL SRI.S.SREEDEV SRI.RONY JOSE SHRI.CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL

¶132

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶133

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶134

2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, PATTOM PALACE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004.

¶135

3 CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PARIVESH BHAVAN, EAST ARJUN NAGAR, DELHI -110032.

¶136

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶137

¶138

4 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PLAMOODU JUNCTION, PATTAM PALACE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶139

5 THE GEOLOGIST, OFFICE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, ASRAMOM, KOLLAM - 691002.

¶140

SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD SRI.M.AJAY SC, CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD SRI.SUJIN SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SC SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN ADDL AG SRI.S.KANNAN SPL.GP

¶141

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2021, ALONG WITH RP.1/2021, RP.17/2021, RP.22/2021, RP.37/2021, RP.39/2021, RP.52/2021, RP.53/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶142

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶143

¶144

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶145

PRESENT

¶146

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶147

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942

¶148

RP.No.52 OF 2021 IN WP(C)NO.16762/2020

¶149

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2020 IN WP(C) 16762/2020(U) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶150

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶151

PALAKKAL GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED, R.S.NO 172, MYSORE PATTA, THOTTUMUKKAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 639, REPRESENTED BY IT MANAGING DIRECTOR P.M.ABOOBAKER.

¶152

BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.S.K.SAJU SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA

¶153

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶154

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶155

2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE AND MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 004.

¶156

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶157

¶158

3 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PLAMOOD JUNCTION, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 004.

¶159

4 CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PARIVESH BHAVAN, EAST ARJUN NAGAR, DELHI-110 032.

¶160

5 M. HARIDASAN, S/O MUTHAN, KONNAKKALKADAVU HOUSE, KORENCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD-678 684.

¶161

6 R.P. SREENIVASAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O LATE SUBRAHMANIAM, 'SREETHILAKAM', OTTAPPALAM, THOTTAKKARA P.O., PIN-679 102.

¶162

SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD SRI.M.AJAY SC, CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ADV.SRI.V.HARISH ADV.SRI.REJI GEORGE SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN ADDL AG SRI.S.KANNAN SPL.GP

¶163

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2021, ALONG WITH RP.1/2021, RP.17/2021, RP.22/2021, RP.37/2021, RP.39/2021, RP.40/2021, RP.53/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶164

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶165

¶166

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶167

PRESENT

¶168

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942

¶169

RP.No.53 OF 2021 IN WP(C)NO.15962/2020

¶170

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2020 IN WP(C)NO.15962/2020(U) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶171

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶172

M/S.V.K.ROCKS PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MANJU JYOTHISH, AGED 32, VELLILAZHAKAM HOUSE, MYLODE P.O., PIN-691 506.

¶173

BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA SRI.R.GITHESH SRI.MANJUNATH MENON SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.

¶174

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶175

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶176

2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE AND MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 004.

¶177

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶178

¶179

3 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PLAMOOD JUNCTION, PATTOM PALACE P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 004.

¶180

4 CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PARIVESH BHAVAN, EAST ARJUN NAGAR, DELHI-110 032.

¶181

5 M.HARIDASAN, S/O MUTHAN, KONNAKKALKADAVU HOUSE, KORENCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD-678 684.

¶182

SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶183

SRI.M.AJAY SC, CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ADV.SRI.V.HARISH SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN ADDL AG SRI.S.KANNAN SPL.GP

¶184

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2021, ALONG WITH RP.1/2021, RP.17/2021, RP.22/2021, RP.37/2021, RP.39/2021, RP.40/2021, RP.52/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶185

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶186

¶187

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶188

R.P. No.1 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.17391 of 2020 R.P. No.17 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.21566 of 2020 R.P. No.22 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.16864 of 2020 R.P. No.37 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.22019 of 2020 R.P. No.39 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.16474 of 2020 R.P. No.40 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.16953 of 2020 R.P. No.52 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.16762 of 2020 R.P. No.53 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.15962 of 2020

¶189

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2021

¶190

O R D E R

¶191

This batch of petitions are instituted seeking review of the common judgment in W.P.(C) Nos.15962, 16474, 16762, 16864, 16953, 17391, 21566 and 22019 of 2020. T he review petitioners are the petitioners in the above writ petitions.

¶192

Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners as also the learned Standing Counsel for the State Pollution Control Board (the SPCB).

¶193

The above writ petitions were disposed of along

¶194

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶195

¶196

with a batch of other writ petitions involving questions identical and similar to the questions raised in the writ petitions, as per the common judgment dated 21.12.2020, treating W.P.(C) No.16367 of 2020 filed by the State as the lead matter. The parties and Exhibits are, therefore, referred to in this order also, as done in the common judgment, as they appear in W.P.(C) No.16367 of 2020.

¶197

On 13.02.2019, respondents 3 to 115 preferred Ext.P6 representation to the Prime Minister of India with a copy to the Chairperson of the National Green Tribunal (the NGT) complaining inter alia about the permissions and licences granted for conducting stone quarrying at a place called Konnakkalkadavu in Palakkad District in the State, mainly on the ground that the proposed stone quarrying would affect the flora and fauna in the area adversely. The copy of Ext.P6 representation received by the Chairperson of the NGT has been treated by the Principal Bench of the NGT as an application, and Ext.P7 order was passed on the same directing the SPCB and the District Magistrate, Palakkad to look into the matter and take appropriate action and furnish an action taken report in the matter within two months. Pursuant to Ext.P7 order, the SPCB has submitted a report before the NGT on

¶198

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶199

¶200

10.07.2019 stating, among others, that environmental clearance has already been granted for the quarry referred to in the representation and since the quarry is located beyond 50 meters from the residential houses and public roads, there is no impediment in operating the quarry. After considering the said report, the NGT passed Ext.P8 order holding that stone quarries would cause air and noise pollution even beyond 50 meters, and consequently directed the SPCB to revisit the existing criteria based on an appropriate study. Pursuant to Ext.P8 order, Ext.P9 report has been filed by the SPCB stating that the existing distance criterion can be maintained, provided the quarry operators comply with the additional conditions referred to therein.

¶201

After considering Ext.P9 report, the NGT Passed Ext.P10 order reiterating its earlier stand that the distance of 50 meters from human inhabited sites for permitting stone quarrying, particularly when blasting is involved in the activity, is grossly inadequate and will have deleterious effect on environment and public health, and directing the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to examine and lay down appropriate stringent distance restrictions for stone quarrying from human inhabited sites within a

¶202

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶203

¶204

month and convey the same to the SPCBs in the country. It was also directed by the NGT in Ext.P10 order that the SPCBs will have to take further action accordingly. Pursuant to Ext.P10 order, the CPCB submitted Ext.P11 report before the NGT, fixing a distance criteria of 100 meters when blasting is not involved, and 200 meters when blasting is involved, from residential buildings and other human inhabited sites, for stone quarrying. Ext.P11 report has been accepted by the NGT and Ext.P12 order was passed directing that the said distance criteria shall be implemented in the country. The writ petitions were instituted challenging Ext.P12 order.

¶205

6 . On 06.08.2020, this court passed an interim order in W.P.(C) Nos.15305, 15309, 15435, 15858 and 15962 of 2020 permitting the existing quarry operators to continue their activities notwithstanding the order of the NGT which is impugned in the writ petitions, and directing that fresh licences and permissions shall not be granted for conducting quarrying operations otherwise than in accordance with the said order.

¶206

The contentions of the petitioners in the writ petitions, in essence, were the following:

¶207

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶208

¶209

(i) The NGT being a creature of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (the NGT Act), it can exercise only the powers conferred on it under the said statute; that in terms of the said statute, the NGT can exercise power only in respect of a dispute falling within the scope of Section 14 of the NGT Act and grant only the relief provided for in Section 15 of the NGT Act; that the grievance/dispute raised by respondents 3 to 115 is not a dispute that falls within the scope of Section 14 of the NGT Act.

¶210

(ii) Even if it is accepted that the grievance/dispute voiced by respondents 3 to 115 is one that falls within the scope of Section 14 of the NGT Act, the NGT is empowered to deal with the same only if an application is filed for the same in terms of the National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedures) Rules, 2011 (NGT Rules); that the NGT Act and the NGT Rules do not confer authority on the NGT to treat a representation as an application, and the impugned order being one passed on a representation, the

¶211

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶212

¶213

same is without jurisdiction.

¶214

(iii) Even if it is accepted that the grievance/dispute voiced by respondents 3 to 115 is one that falls within the scope of Section 14 of the NGT Act and that the NGT is justified in treating the representation as an application, the alleged cause of action for invoking the jurisdiction of the NGT on the application as disclosed in the representation being one arose in the State of Kerala, the Principal Bench of the NGT which does not have territorial jurisdiction over the State of Kerala, has acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order.

¶215

(iv) Even if it is accepted that the grievance/dispute voiced by respondents 3 to 115 is one that falls within the scope of Section 14 of the NGT Act, and the Principal Bench of the NGT was justified in treating the representation preferred by respondents 3 to 115 as an application, the impugned order is vitiated by procedural irregularities in as much as the same was

¶216

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶217

¶218

passed without hearing all the affected parties.

¶219

(v) The impugned order, at any rate, is unjustified in so far as respondents 3 to 115 have not voiced any grievance in their representation concerning the minimum distance to be maintained for permitting stone quarrying from human inhabited sites.

¶220

(vi) A distance requirement of 50 meters from human inhabited sites for permitting stone quarrying has already been prescribed by the State Government in the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 (the KMMC Rules), framed in exercise of the powers under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (the MMDR Act), and the impugned order modifying the aforesaid statutory prescription is one issued without jurisdiction, for such orders could be issued only by constitutional courts having powers of judicial review.

¶221

(vii) The provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention

¶222

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶223

¶224

and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 do not confer any authority on the CPCB to lay down any standards for the suitability of any premises or location for carrying on any industry, and that such prescriptions for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution, could be made only by the Central Government under Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The impugned order of the NGT directing implementation of the prescriptions made by CPCB in usurpation of the power of the Central Government is illegal.

¶225

(viii) The impugned order is unjustified since Ext.P11 report of the CPCB, on the basis of which the said order was passed is not one made based on any study or scientific data.”

¶226

This court found that the impugned order of the NGT is vitiated for non compliance of the principles of natural justice in as much as the same was rendered without affording an

¶227

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶228

¶229

opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. This court also found, having regard to the provisions of the NGT Act and the NGT Rules, that the grievance / dispute raised by respondents 3 to 115 in the application is one that falls within the scope of Section 14 of the NGT Act; that the NGT has epistolary jurisdiction as also jurisdiction to initiate proceedings suo motu for taking preventive and restorative measures in the interest of the environment and that the Principal Bench of the NGT has jurisdiction to entertain the application of respondents 3 to 115. After having rendered the findings aforesaid, this court remitted the application of respondents 3 to 115 to the NGT for fresh consideration, in terms of the judgment sought to be reviewed. Having decided to remit the matter to the NGT for fresh consideration of the application, this court also considered the question as to whether the status quo prevailing as on the date of the impugned order as regards the distance criteria to be maintained for permitting stone quarrying from residential buildings and other human inhabited sites should be restored pending disposal of the matter by the NGT, and found in the peculiar facts of the case that it is only appropriate to order that the interim order passed by this court on 06.08.2020 shall

¶230

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶231

¶232

continue. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed in part, the impugned order of the NGT was set aside and the NGT was directed to dispose of the application of respondents 3 to 115 afresh after notice by way of publication to all those who are affected by the prescription of the stringent distance criteria from residential buildings and other human inhabited sites other than what is prevailing in the State for permitting stone quarrying. As indicated, it was also ordered that the interim order passed by this court on 06.08.2020 will continue till the disposal of the said application by the NGT. It was however made clear that the NGT would be free to modify the said interim order pending disposal of the application, if situation warrants. As noted, the petitioners seek review of the said judgment.

¶233

9 . Before delving deep into the contentions raised by the petitioners in the review petitions, it is necessary to mention that in the light of the provisions under Order 47 Rule (1) of the Co de of Civil Procedure, the said power can be exercised only on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking review or could not be produced by him at the time

¶234

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶235

¶236

when the order was made, or when the order is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record. It is trite that an error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction must be an error which may strike one on a mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning. The Apex court explained the expression “error apparent on the face of the record” in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137, in the following words:

¶237

“An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ.”

¶238

In the light of the aforesaid principles, an error which is not selfevident and one could be discovered only by a process of reasoning, can hardly be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the exercise of the review jurisdiction [See Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715]. To put it differently, the

¶239

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶240

¶241

power of review cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. The courts have, therefore, to ensure that the review petition is not an appeal in disguise and if it is found that the review petition is an appeal in disguise, the same is liable to be rejected at the threshold, for otherwise, there would be no end to the litigation at all. The contentions raised by the petitioners in this review petitions are to be considered in the light of the said principles.

¶242

I shall now refer to the contentions in the review petitions case-wise.

¶243

R.P. No.1 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.17391 of 2020

¶244

The first ground urged by the petitioner f or seeking review of the judgment is that the statement of the learned counsel for the SPCB recorded in the judgment that the additional conditions referred to by the SPCB in Ext.P9 report are not insisted at present is factually inco rrect. It is stated that the said additional conditions are insisted while granting approval of the mining plan of the quarry operators and while granting them environmental clearance. It was argued by the learned counsel for th e petitioner that since this court ordered the interim order dated 06.08.2020 to

¶245

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶246

¶247

continue till the disposal of the application by the NGT on the basis of the said incorrect statement of the counsel for the SPCB, the said part of the judgment at least is liable to be reviewed. The statement of the learned counsel for the SPCB recorded in the judgment is only that the SPCB is not insisting compliance of the conditions mentioned in Ext.P9 report at present. The petitioner has no case that the SPCB is insisting compliance of those conditions at present. The case of the petitioner, on the other hand, is only that other statutory authoritie s are insisting compliance of most of the said conditions. In other words, even the petitioner has no case that the said statement is incorrect. When the statement recorded in the judgement and relied on by the Court is correct, the contention raised by the petitioner is irrelevant, especially in the context of a petition seeking review of the judgement. The ground aforesaid is, therefore, unsustainable.

¶248

The next ground is that the decision of the Apex Court in Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari , (2018) 11 SCC 734 relied on by the petitioner in support of his contention that the grievance/dispute raised by respondents 3 to 115 would not fall within the scope of Section 14 of the NGT Act has not been

¶249

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶250

¶251

considered by the Court. The petitioner, howeve,r concedes that the said contention has been taken note of by the Court in the judgement. In Techi Tagi Tara, the question examined was whether the NGT has the authority to decide questions relating to the appointment of members of the SPCB. Having regard to the provisions contained in the NGT Act, the Apex Court held that questions relating to the appointment of Chairperson and members of SPCB would not fall within the scope of Section 14 of the NGT Act. This Court felt that the said decision is irrelevant in the context of the present case and hence the same was not relied on in the judgment. The view aforesaid may or may no t be correct, but when the contention raised by a party to the proceedings is taken note of in the judgement, according to me, omission in referring to a decision cited by a party is not a ground at all to seek review of the judgment.

¶252

The next ground is that the decisions of the Apex Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar , (2011) 9 SCC 541 and in Standard Chartered Bank v. Dharminder Bhohi, (2013) 15 SCC 341 re lied on by the petitioner in support of his contention that the NGT does not have power to

¶253

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶254

¶255

initiate suo motu proceedings have not been considered in the judgment. As in the case of the earlier ground, the contention aforesaid has been taken note of by the Court in the judgement. The proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the cases is that the Tribunals cannot exercise powers not expressly provided by the statute and the Tribunals cannot assume the role of a court different from the purpose for which it is established. The said general proposition has also been taken note of in the judgement. The contention of the petitioner that the NGT does not have power to initiate suo motu proceedings was however rejected by the Court holding that the NGT is empowered to do so in terms of the NGT Act and the NGT Rules. The omission on the part of the Court in referring to the citations relied on by the petitioner in support of a proposition which was found to be irrel evant in the context, according to me, is no ground to seek review of the judgement.

¶256

The next ground is that the contention of the petitioner that the provisions of th e Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act do not confer any authority to the CPCB and the SPCBs to prescribe any distance criteria for permitting stone quarrying. It is conceded

¶257

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶258

¶259

by the petitioner in the review petition that the said contention has been taken note of in the judgment. As revealed from the judgment, this Court has considered only the contentions relating to the jurisdiction of the NGT to treat the representation of respondents 3 to 115 as an application and has not dealt with the right of respondents 3 to 115 to claim the relief sought for by them in their application. The contention aforesaid is one raised by the petitioner in the context of the right of respondents 3 to 115 to claim the relief sought for by them in their application. When this Court has chosen not to consider the questions relating to the right of respondents 3 to 115 to claim relief in their application, nonconsideration the aforesaid contention does not confer on the petitioner a right to seek review of the judgement.

¶260

The next ground is that the contention raised by the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Goa Foundation v. Union of India and others , (2014) 6 SCC 590 tha t the Central Government alone is empowered in terms of the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and the Rules made thereunder to prescribe minimum distance criteria for permitting stone quarrying and the CPCB does not have that power.

¶261

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶262

¶263

This again is a contention raised in the context of the right of respondents 3 to 115 to claim relief from the NGT in their application. For the reasons stated in paragraph 14 above, this contention is also unsustainable.

¶264

The next ground is that the contention of the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Apex court in

¶265

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries(I)

¶266

Ltd. reported in 2019 SCC onLine SC 221 that the NGT does not have the power to set aside or ignore Rule 10(f) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 which permits quarrying activity beyond 50 meters from residential houses and other human inhabited sites has not been considered. As in the case of the earlier ground, this is also a contention raised in the context of the right of respondents 3 to 115 to claim relief from the NGT in their application and therefore unsustainable.

¶267

The next ground is that after having set aside the impugned order of the NGT, this Court was not justified in ordering continuance of the interim order passed in the matters and thereby deprived t he petitioner from seeking licences and permissions for operating quarry as per the existing statutory provisions. As

¶268

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶269

¶270

revealed from the judgement, this Court has ordered the interim order referred to above to continue for the reasons stated in paragraph 33 of the judgment sought to be reviewed. I have already repelled the contention raised by the petitioner as to the sustainability of one of the reasons stated in the said paragraph. The question whether this Court was justified in ordering continuance of the interim order for the reasons stated in paragraph 33 is certainly a matter that could be examined by the higher forums, but not at all by this Court in review jurisdiction. Further, the petitioner has no case that this Court has no jurisdiction to pass an interim order in the nature of one passed on 06.08.2020. The petitioner has also no case that this Court has no jurisdiction to prescribe the distance criteria as done by the NGT in appropriate cases in pub lic interest. If that be so, according to me, the authority of this Court to order continuance of the interim order till the application of respondents 3 to 115 is finally disposed of by the NGT cannot also be questioned by the petitioner. The ground aforesaid is also therefore, unsustainable.

¶271

In the context of considering the scope of Section 14 of the NGT Act, this Court has observed in paragraph 22 of the

¶272

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶273

¶274

judgment as follows:

¶275

“It is all the more so since the representation of respondents 3 to 115 raises a question arising out of the implementation of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act also, insofar as it is not disputed that stone quarrying would inevitably pollute air and water in the area.”

¶276

Similarly, in the very same context, this Court has made the following observations in paragraph 23 of the judgment:

¶277

“Having regard to the purpose for which the NGT is established and having regard to the provisions in the NGT Act and in the NGT Rules, especially Rule 24 of the NGT Rules, and having regard to the interpretation given to the said rule by the Apex Court in the case referred to above, the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that the NGT is not empowered under Section 15 of the NGT Act to grant relief in the nature of general directions as done in the case on hand.”

¶278

Again, in the same context, this Court has observed in paragraph 24 of the judgment thus:

¶279

“In the light of the said discussion, the contention raised by the petitioners that the grievance/dispute raised by respondents 3 to 115 is not a dispute that falls within the scope of Section 14 of the NGT Act and that the impugned order is one that falls within the scope of Section 15 of the NGT Act is only to be rejected and I do so.”

¶280

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶281

¶282

The ground of the petitioner is that after having chosen to remit the application to the NGT, this Court ought not have made the aforesaid observations, for the same would preclude the petitioner from defending the application before the NGT. As noted, the aforesaid findings/observations have been made by this Court in the context of considering the contention of the petitioner that the application of respondents 3 to 115 is not one that falls within the scope of Section 14 of the NGT Act. Having raised such a contention, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that this Court would not have made the aforesaid findings/observations. If the said findings/observations are unsustainable, the petitioner is free to canvass the correctness of the same in appropriate proceedings, but not in a review petition. The ground aforesaid is also therefore, not sustainable in the context of the review petition.

¶283

R.P. No.17 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.21566 of 2020

¶284

The additional ground urged by th e petitioners in this review petition is that Ext.P9 report filed by the SPCB before the NGT is not one prepared after having had d ue deliberations with various stakeholders as claimed by them. It is stated that the

¶285

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶286

¶287

quarry operators in the State were never consulted by the SPCB in that process and since the interim order passed by this Court was ordered to be continued till the disposal of the application by the NGT based on Ext.P9 report, the said part of the judgment is liable to be reviewed. First of all, I do not understand the role of the quarry operators in the State in fixing the distance criteria for permitting stone quarrying. Further, this Court has relied on Ext.P9 report in th e judgment having regard to the fact that the same is one prepared af ter due deliberations with some of the statutory authorities and after consulting the CPCB. The question whether this Court was justified in placing reliance on Ext.P9 report in ordering continuance of the interim order passed in the matters is one to be examined by the higher forums and not by this Court in the review jurisdiction.

¶288

Another ground raised by the petitioners in this review petition is that insofar as the petitioners are not parties to the proceedings before the NGT, it was inappropriate fo r this Court to direct the petitioners to move the NGT for vacating the interim order passed by this Court in terms of which their right to obtain permissions and licences for conducting the quarry referred to in

¶289

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶290

¶291

the writ petition was curtailed. I have found in the judgment that the order impugned in the writ petitions was one passed by the NGT having felt the need to have a stringent minimum distance criteria from residential buildings and other human inhabited sites for permitting stone quarrying. I have also found that the NGT has jurisdiction to issue such directions, if it chooses to do so. The interim order of this Court which was ordered to be continued, is one passed pending disposal of the writ petitions challenging the final orde r passed by the NGT. When this Court felt that this Court is unable to dispose of the matter finally and that the contentions raised are to be considered by the NGT, it was felt that the interim order passed by this Court should continue till the matter is finally decided by the NGT as an interim order of the NGT. T he petitioners cannot dispute the fact that if the said interim order was one passed by the NGT, they ought to have moved the NGT for vacating the same, notwithstanding the fact that they are not parties to the proceedings. If that be so, they cannot be heard to contend that this Court was not justified in issuing the direction aforesaid.

¶292

R.P. No.22 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.16864 of 2020

¶293

The essential ground raised by th e petitioner i n

¶294

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶295

¶296

this review petition also is one relating to the sustainability of the judgment insofar as it directs continuance of the interim order dated 06.08.2020, pending disposal of the matter by the NGT. The petitioner was not a person who was operating any quarry at the time when the impugned order was passed by the NGT. He states that he was earlier operating a quarry and his application for renewal of the quarrying permit was pending consideration at the time when the NGT passed the order. I have already dealt with the arguments relating to the sustainability of the judgement insofar as it directs continuance of the interim order. For the very same reasons, I reject the aforesaid ground raised by the petitioner as well. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in The State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta , AIR 1952 SC 12, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment of this Court, insofar it directs continuance of the interim order passed in the writ petitions on 06.08.2020 till the disposal of the application by the NGT is against the dictum in the said case. In the case aforesaid, the dictum laid down was that the power of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and final relief on the

¶297

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶298

¶299

application. That was a case where the Apex Court found on facts that relief could be claimed by the party only in a properly instituted suit, but nevertheless granted him an interim order for a period of three months or a week after the institution of the suit, evidently for the purpose of enabling the party to obtain interim order in the suit. As noted, this is a case where the NGT granted certain reliefs to the party in a matter to be dealt with by the NGT and when the same was impugned before this Court, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order in part. Later, when it was found that the matter needs to be considered afresh by the NGT, this Court remitted the matter to the NGT and ordered the interim order passed in the matter to continue till the disposal of the application by the NGT as an interim order of the NGT. The decision in Madan Gopal Rungta , according to me, has no application to the facts of the present case.

¶300

R.P. No.37 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.22019 of 2020

¶301

22. The additional ground raised by the petitioner in this review petition is that the grievance voiced by the petitioner in the writ petition was that though he had all the permissions, licences and clearance required for conducting quarrying operations

¶302

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶303

¶304

and was in fact operating the quarry as on the date of the order of the NGT impugned in the writ petitions, his application for renewal of the quarrying permit which expired after the order of the NGT is not being entertained by the competent authority in the light of the order of the NGT. According to the petitioner, insofar as the quarrying permit of the petitioner was valid and current as on the date of the order of the NGT, this Court ought to have permitted continuance of the quarrying operations till the matter is finally decided by the NGT. As noted, in terms of the interim order dated 06.08.2020, this Court directed the status quo to be maintained regarding the distance criteria as provided for under Rules 10(f) and 40(i) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules only in cases where the quarrying permit/quarrying lease was valid and current as on the date of the NGT order. As far as cases where applications for fresh grant of quarrying permits/lease and applications for renewal of quarrying permits/lease were pending as on the date of the interim order, this Court clarified in the interim order that if those cases do not fulfil the distance criteria impugned in the writ petitions, their requests need not be considered. The operators whose quarrying permit/ lease had expired before and after the NGT

¶305

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶306

¶307

order cannot be intelligibly differentiated. In so far as this court precluded in terms of the interim order dated 6.8.2020 the authorities from considering the applications for renewal of quarrying permit/lease preferred by operators whose permit/lease had expired prior to the NGT order, permitting consideration of applications for renewal of quarrying permit/lease preferred by operators whose permit/lease had expired after the NGT order, would go against the spirit of the interim order passed by this court on 6.8.2020. The said interim order having been in force right from 06.08.2020, I do not find any justification to modify the same, in exercise of the review jurisdiction of this Court.

¶308

R.P. No.39 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.16474 of 2020

¶309

The additional ground raised in this review petition is that this court acted illegally in directing the NGT to consider the question as to whether the interim order passed by this Court should be vacated. According to th e petitioner, t he NGT has no jurisdiction to vacate an interim order passed by this Court. Such a direction was issued by this court having regard to the peculiar facts of this case and also the expertise of the NGT as a specialised Tribunal in the field of environmental protection. When

¶310

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶311

¶312

this court confers power on the NGT or for that matter, to any other forum to modify an interim arrangement made pending disposal of the matter by the forum concerned, there would be no impediment at all in the forum concerned in modifying the order passed by this Court.

¶313

R.P. No.40 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.16953 of 2020 R.P. No.52 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.16762 of 2020 R.P. No.53 of 2021 in W.P.(C) No.15962 of 2020

¶314

24. The grounds urged in these review petitions have already been dealt with in the previous paragraphs.

¶315

25. In the course of hearing of these review petitions, it is brought to the notice of this Court that applications for renewal/revalidation of ancillary permissions, licences, clearances, such as environmental clearance, consent under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, explosive licences, D & O licence of the local bodies etc. to be obtained for the purpose of conducting quarrying operations based on quarrying permit/lease, are not being considered by the competent authorities even in the case of persons who were holding current and valid quarrying permits/lease

¶316

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶317

¶318

as on the date of the order of the NGT, namely 21.07.2020. The same, according to me, is against the spirit of the interim order dated 06.08.2020. It is, therefore, to be clarified that the judgment sought to be reviewed will not preclude the competent authorities from considering the applications for renewal/revalidation of ancillary permissions, licences, clearances, such as environmental clearance, consent under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, explosive licences, D & O licence of the local bodies etc. in the case of persons who were holding valid and current quarrying permit/lease as on the date of the order of the NGT namely, 21.07.2020.

¶319

The review petitions, in the circumstances, are disposed of with the clarification made in paragraph 25 a bove.

¶320

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶321

Mn/YKB/PV

¶322

R.P Nos.1 of 2021 & con. cases

¶323

¶324

APPENDIX OF RP 1/2021

¶325