Quarry distance safeguards and the NGT's suo motu jurisdiction were challenged. The Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and preserved the single Judge's remittal and interim restrictions. Appellants remained free to contest the 100- and 200-metre criteria before the Tribunal.
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.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WA.No.255 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17391/2020(Y) AND ORDER DATED 28.1.2021 IN R.P.NO.1 OF 2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SACHU RAJAN EAPEN KALLUVILA ESTATE, MURINJAKAL P. O., KOODAL, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 693.
BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL SMT.DIVYA SARA GEORGE SMT.JAISY ELZA JOE SHRI.ABI BENNY AREECKAL SMT.LEAH RACHEL NINAN SMT.NANDA SANAL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM,
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
2
PATTAM PALACE P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
7 THE GEOLOGIST DISTRICT OFFICE, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, MINI CIVIL STATION, ARANMULA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 533.
R1, R2 & R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN R3 BY SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL R4 BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, STANDING COUNSEL R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, STANDING COUNSEL R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.HARISH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.2.2021 ALONG WITH WA.250/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 16.03.2021, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WA.No.250 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15305/2020(K) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
P.K.BIJU @ VARGHESE P.K., AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.KURIAKOSE, RESIDING AT PARAKKAL HOUSE, KORANCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD-678 684.
BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
4
4 THE STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, FLAT NO.H/, 6TH FLOOR, KESAVADASA PURAM, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
5 HARIDAS.M., S/O.MUTHAN, KONNAKKALKADAVU HOUSE, KORANCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD-678 684.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN,ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.S KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.HARISH SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R3, SRI.T.NAVEEN, STANDING COUNSELFOR FOR R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.2.2021 ALONG WITH WA.255/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 16.03.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WA.No.261 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 20581/2020(W) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
JAISON LUKOSE AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.C.T.LUKOSE, CHIRAYIL THOMPSON VILLA, ETTUMANOOR P.O., 686631, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, PATTOM PALACE P.O., KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
6
3 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, CIVIL STATION, SEAPORT AIRPORT ROAD, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM-682030.
R1-R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2021, ALONG WITH WA.255/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 16.03.2021, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WA.No.264 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER IN RP 17/2021 AND JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2020 IN W.P.C) NO.21566 OF 2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 L. SAIJU, AGED 56 YEARS S/O.K.LEKSHMANAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.K.LEKSHMANAN COMPANY INFRASTRUCTURES AND INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD. (KLCI AND IPL), AKKAVILA, KOLLAM - 690 011.
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.
BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUANANTHAPURAM -695 001.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
8
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.
4 THE STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD FLAT NO.H/6TH FLOOR, KESHAVADASAPURAM, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA - 695 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
5 HARIDAS M. S/O.MUTHAN, KONNAKKALKADAVU HOUSE, KORANCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 684.
R1& R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN R3 BY SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL R4 BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, STANDING COUNSEL R5 BY SRI.V.HARISH, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2021 ALONG WITH WA.255/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 16.03.2021, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WA.No.269 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16474/2020(H) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
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.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.HARIDAS SRI.BIJU HARIHARAN SRI.P.C.SHIJIN SRI.RISHIKESH HARIDAS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
10
ARUJUN NAGAR, DELHI-110032.
5 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689645.
8 M.HARIDASAN, S/O. MUTHAN, KONNAKKAL KADAVU HOUSE, KORANCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN-678684.
R1 BY SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, STANDING COUNSEL R2 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN R3 BY SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL R4 & R5 BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2021 ALONG WITH WA.255/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 16.03.2021, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WA.No.282 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21718/2020(L) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) NO.21718/2020:
M/S.WESTERN GRANITES, VADAKKAN HOUSE,KUMARAPURAM POST,PALLIKKARA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE-683 562. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, GREEHO KURIAN.
BY ADV. SHRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C) NO.21718/2020:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
12
5 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.
6 MINISTRY OF MINES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,SHASTRI BHAVAN, DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD,NEW DELHI-110 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
8 M.HARIDASAN, KONNAKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O.,KIZHAKKECHERRY,PALAKKAD, KERALA-678 684.
R1, R2 & R5 BY SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN,ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL & SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R6 & R7 BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA R3 BY SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL R4 BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2021 ALONG WITH WA.255/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 16.3.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WA.No.286 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16367/2020(U) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN,ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:
3 HARIDASAN M. S/O.MUTHAN, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
14
| 5 | GOPINATH K.V. KURINJITHODU, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
|---|---|
| 6 | SUNDARAN N. KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 7 | ELDHO PAUL ALAKKAL, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 8 | SHAJI JOSEPH MANIAMMAKAT, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 9 | SHELBI SAJU ARAKKAL, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KOENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 10 | SIVADASAN A. KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 11 | JOSE P.V. THOTTUNGAL ESTATE, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 12 | APPUKUTTAN A. PUTHAN VEEDU, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 13 | T.A.JOHNY THEKKANORIYIL, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 14 | T.SAHADEVAN KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
15
| 15 | A.V.GEORGE AERATHU HOUSE, KORENCHIRA P.O., PATTAYAMPADAM, KONNAKKALKADAVU, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
|---|---|
| 16 | LIJO T.PAUL THAZHATHEDATHU HOUSE, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 17 | JITHIN M.S. MANIAMMACKIL HOUSE, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 18 | ARUMUGHAN THOTTUPADAM, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 19 | KANNAN KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 20 | JAYAKUMAR K.P. KOTTARAMPARAMBIL, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 21 | LEENA ELDHO ALAKKAL, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 22 | ROUBLE P.VARGHESE PALLIPPATTU, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 23 | M.SALIM PUTHANTHOTTAM, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 24 | V.SURENDRAN DORUVATHAKKAD, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 25 | SIBI PAUL THARAPPEL, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
16
26 REJI P.M. PULIMOOTTIL, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684.
27 MATHAI P.M. PULIMOOTTIL, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684.
28 KOUSALIYA KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684.
29 ANIL N. KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. 30 A.V.BABY ARAKKAL, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. 31 SARAKKUTTY BABY ARAKKAL, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684.
32 SULOCHANA KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. 33 LAKSHMI KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. 34 NEELANDAN MULLATHODI, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. 35 PARU MULLATHODY, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. 36 VALSALA MULLATHODY, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
17
37 VASANDHA MULLATHODY, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684.
| 39 | VANITHA |
|---|---|
| KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, | |
| PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 40 | THANGA |
|---|---|
| KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, | |
| PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 43 | LEELA |
|---|---|
| VAISHAGHAM, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., | |
| KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
44 SIVASANKARAN VAISHAGHAM, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684.
45 LEELAVATHY KRISHNAKRIPA, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684.
47 SUENDRAN KANJIRAMKUNNEL, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
18
| 48 | BABU M. KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
|---|---|
| 49 | SIVAN M. KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 50 | SUDEVAN K. KUNNAMKAD HOUSE, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 51 | BINESH CHIRAKKUNNEL HOUSE, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 52 | KANNAN K.N. KUNISERRY HOUSE, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 53 | HARIDASAN T.V. THOTTUNGAL HOUSE, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 54 | SANTHOSH KUMAR KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 55 | RAJAN KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 56 | MANIKANDAN K. PUZHAKKALIDAM HOUSE, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 57 | RATHEESH K.N. KUNNISSERIYIL HOUSE, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 58 | JAYAPRAKASH KUNISSERIYIL HOUSE, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
19
| 59 | SASIREKHA KALIKA HOUSE, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
|---|---|
| 60 | BIJESH B.JOSE KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 61 | USHA SUDHARAN KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 62 | JIBASH S. KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 63 | OMANA KURIJITHOPE, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 64 | RASMITHA R. KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 65 | RAMAN V. KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 66 | JANAKI KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 67 | NEETHU KUNISERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 68 | VESU |
| KUNISERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. | |
| 69 | SREEJITH KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 70 | SATHI DEVI |
| KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
20
71 DARA K.S. KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684.
75 THANKAM K. KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
21
82 SUJITH KALAPURAKAL, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684.
| 83 | PREMA BABU |
|---|---|
| KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, | |
| PALAKKAD - 678 684. | |
| 84 | KUNJARU |
| KALAPURAKAL, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., | |
| KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 85 | JANAKI KALAPURAKAL HOUSE KIZHAKKENCHERRY, |
, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
|---|---|---|
| 86 | HARITHA H. | |
| KALIKA HOUSE, KON | NAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., | |
| KIZHAKKENCHERRY, | PALAKKAD - 678 684. | |
| 87 | HIMA H. | |
| KALIKA HOUSE, KON KIZHAKKENCHERRY, |
NAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
|
| 88 | KRISHNAKUTTY PUTHENVEEDU HOUSE |
, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., |
| KIZHAKKENCHERRY, | PALAKKAD - 678 684. | |
| 89 | SUNITHA | |
| PUTHENVEEDU, KONN KIZHAKKENCHERRY, |
AKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
|
| 90 | ATHUL KRISHNA PUTHENVEEDU, KONN |
AKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., |
| KIZHAKKENCHERRY, | PALAKKAD - 678 684. | |
| 91 | AKHIL KRISHNA PUTHENVEEDU, KONN KIZHAKKENCHERRY, |
AKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 92 | KANOAI KONNAKKALKADAVU, PALAKKAD - 678 68 |
KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, 4. |
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
22
| 93 | NARAYANI KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
|---|---|
| 94 | MADAVI KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 95 | SIVADASAN KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 96 | DIVYA KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 97 | DEVAKI |
| KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
|
| 98 | PRABHITHA KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 99 | AMANDAKRISH KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 100 | SWAPNA K. |
| KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
|
| 101 | VIJAYAN M. |
| KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
|
| 102 | P.A.KRISHNANKUTTY |
| PEZHAKURA HOUSE, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
|
| 103 | BIJESH P.JOSE |
| PANDAVATH HOUSE, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
23
| 104 | N.A.STEPHEN NELLANIKODE HOUSE KIZHAKKENCHERRY, |
, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
|---|---|---|
| 105 | BETTY STEPHEN NELLANIKODE HOUSE KIZHAKKENCHERRY, |
, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 106 | ALBIN STEPHEN NELLANIKODE HOUSE KIZHAKKENCHERRY, |
, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 107 | ARSHA N.STEPHEN NELLANIKODE HOUSE KIZHAKKENCHERRY, |
, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 108 | AKHILA STEPHEN NELLANIKODE HOUSE KIZHAKKENCHERRY, |
, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 109 | INDIRA KUMARI VRINDAVAN HOUSE, KIZHAKKENCHERRY, |
KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 110 | CHENTHAMARAKSHAN VRINDAVAN HOUSE, KIZHAKKENCHERRY, |
KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 111 | AMAR C. VRINDAVAN HOUSE, KIZHAKKENCHERRY, |
KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 112 | AMRITHA C. VRINDAVAN HOUSE, KIZHAKKENCHERRY, |
KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 113 | VISHNU V. KONNAKKALKADAVU, PALAKKAD - 678 68 |
KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, 4. |
| 114 | THEJUS V. | |
| KONNAKKALKADAVU, PALAKKAD - 678 68 |
KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, 4. |
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
24
| 115 | GEORGE T.L. THOTTUPATTE HOUSE, KONNAKKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O., KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
|---|---|
| 116 | P.K.BIJU @ VARGHESE P.K. S/O.KURIAKOSE, RESIDING AT PARAKKAL HOUSE, KORANCHIRA P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 684. |
| 117 | THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, NEW DELHI - 110 011. |
| 118 | THE KERALA STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. |
| 119 | PROF.KUSUMAM JOSEPH D/O.LATE T.V.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT CHOLAYAR, MELOOR P.O., CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR - 680 307. |
| 120 | GEORGE SEBASTIAN S/O.VARKEY, MUKHALAPARACKAL HOUSE, KALATHUMKADAVU P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 579. |
| R1 BY SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL | |
| R2 BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, STANDING COUNSEL | |
| R3 BY SRI.V.HARISH | |
| R118 BY SRI.M.P.SREEKUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL | |
| R117 BY SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG | |
| R116 BY ADV. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA |
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2021, ALONG WITH WA.255/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 16.03.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WA.No.289 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2020 IN WP(C) 15962/2020(U)AND AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.1.2021 IN R.P.NO.53 OF 2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
WRIT APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
M/S.V.K.ROCKS PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MANJU JYOTHISH , AGED 32, VELLILAZHAKAM HOUSE, MYLODE P O, PIN-691506.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.R.GITHESH SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA SRI.MANJUNATH MENON SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY(INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
26
2 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE AND MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P O, TRIVANDRUM-695004.
3 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONROL BOARD PLAMOOD JUNCTION, PATTOM PALACE P O, TRIVANDRUM-695004.
5 M HARIDASAN S/O MUTHAN, KONNAKKALKADAVU HOUSE, KORENCHIRA P O, PALAKKAD-678684.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY SRI.T.NAVEEN R4 BY SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL R5 BY SRI.V.HARISH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2021 ALONG WITH WA.255/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 16.03.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
27
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WA.No.291 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16762/2020(U) AND AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.1.2021 IN R.P.NO.52 OF 2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
WRIT APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
PALAKKAL GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED
R.S.NO.172, MYSORE PATTA, THOTTUMUKKAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673639, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR P.M.ABOOBAKER.
BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
28
6 R.P.SREENIVASAN, AGED 48 YEARS S/O. LATE SUBRAHMANIAM, SREETHILAKAM, OTTAPPALAM, THOTTAKKARA P.O., PIN-679102.
R1&R2 BY SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN,ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, STANDING COUNSEL R4 BY SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL R5 BY SRI.V.HARISH R6 BY ADV. SRI.REJI GEORGE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.2.2021 ALONG WITH WA.255/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 16.03.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
29
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WA.No.294 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16455/2020(F) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/APPELLANT:
ADANI VIZHINJAM PORT PVT. LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ADANI HOUSE, NR. MITHAKHALI SIX ROADS, NAVARANGPURA, AHAMEDABAD, GUJARAT - 380009 AND HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, VIPANCHIKA TOWERS, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MD AND CEO SRI. RAJESH KUMAR JHA.
BY ADVS. SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
30
R1,R2 & R6 BY SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4 BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, STANDING COUNSEL R3 BY SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL R5 BY SRI.V.HARISH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.2.2021, ALONG WITH WA.255/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 16.03.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WA.No.300 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3200/2021(Y) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SAKEER HUSSAIN
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. KUTTYMOIDEEN HAJI, KUDALIL HOUSE, PARAMMALANGADI P.O, (VIA) KALAPAKANCHERY, MALAPPURAM - 676551.
BY ADVS. SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS SHRI.HARIMOHAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
32
R1,R2 & R6 BY SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4 BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, STANDING COUNSEL R3 BY SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL R5 BY SRI.V.HARISH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.2.2021 ALONG WITH WA.255/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 16.03.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
33
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WA.No.301 OF 2021
[JUDGMENT DATED 28.1.2021 IN R.P.NO.37/2021 FILED AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2020 IN WP(C) 22019/2020(B) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA]
APPELLANT/REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) NO.22019/2020:
BINU CHERIAN AGED 47 YEARS THAKKIRICKAL HOUSE, CHELAD P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. SHRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C) N0.22019/2020:
1 CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PARIVESH BHAVAN, EAST ARJUN NAGAR, DELHI 110 032, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
34
8 M. HARIDASAN, KONNAKALKADAVU, KORENCHIRA P.O, KIZHAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD, KERALA-678 684
R3 & R5 BY SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, STANDING COUNSEL R1 BY SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL R6 & R7 BY SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG R8 BY SRI.V.HARISH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.2.2021, ALONG WITH WA.255/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 16.03.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
35
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WA.No.318 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21834/2020(D) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) NO.21834/2020:
PAYYOLI GRANITES PVT. LTD. THANKAMALA ESTATE, KEEZHARIYUR P.O., KOZHIKODE, KOYILANDY-673 307, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ISSAC JACOB.
BY ADV. SHRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C) NO.21834/2020:
1 THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PARIVESH BHAVAN, EAST ARJUN NAGAR, DELHI-110 032, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
36
R4 & R5 BY SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, STANDING COUNSEL R1 BY SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL R3 BY SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, STANDING COUNSEL R6&R7 BY SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG R8 BY SRI.V.HARISH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.2.2021 ALONG WITH WA.255/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 16.03.2021, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
37
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WA.No.328 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16953/2020(T) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
R. MURALEEDHARAN AGED 53 YEARS KEERTHI BHAVAN, KADAKKODE P.O, KOLLAM-691 505
BY ADVS. SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL SRI.S.SREEDEV SRI.RONY JOSE SHRI.CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
38
4 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PLAMOODU JUNCTION, PATTAM PALACE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
OFFICE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, ASRAMOM, KOLLAM-691 002
R1 & R5 BY SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R4 BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.2.2021, ALONG WITH WA.255/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 16.03.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
39
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WA.No.363 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 20581/2020(W) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/NOT A PARTY TO WRIT PETITION:
SEBASTIAN K.J. S/O.JAMES,AGED 54 YEARS,RESIDING AT KANDATHINKARA HOUSE,KAREKKAD, OORAKAM MELMURI P.O.,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 307.
BY ADV. SRI.N.ANAND
RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS:
1 JAISON LUKOSE, S/O.C.T.LUKOSE,AGED 39 YEARS,CHIRAYIL THOMPSON VILLA,ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 631.
2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
40
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM(SR) FOR R1 SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 & R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.2.2021 ALONG WITH WA.255/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 16.03.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
41
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WA.No.366 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15962/2020(U) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/3RD PARTY:
K.ANILKUMAR
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. KARUNAKARAN, AMBALAKKARA HOUSE, PULAMON P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691531.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.ANEESH JAMES
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
42
R2 & R7 BY SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4 BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, STANDING COUNSEL R5 BY SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.2.2021, ALONG WITH WA.255/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 16.03.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
43
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WA.No.373 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 19600/2020(Y) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WP(C) 19600/2020:
P.V.SANTHOSH AGED 50 YEARS
S/O VELAYUDHAN, PANDIRIKKOTTIL HOUSE, MAZHUVANNOOR KARA, MAZHUVANNOOR VILLAGE, MAZHUVANNOOR P.O.,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
BY ADV. SHRI.ESM.KABEER
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP(C) 19600/2020:
1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001.
3 THE CHAIRMAN, STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, 4TH FLOOR, KSRTC TERMINAL, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
44
R1, R2, R4 & R5 BY SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, STANDING COUNSEL R6 BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, STANDING COUNSEL R7 BY SRI.DEEPU THANKAN BY SRI.V.HARISH, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.2.2021 ALONG WITH WA.255/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 16.03.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WA.No.391 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16864/2020(G) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER:
BETTY BIJU AGED 40 YEARS W/O. LATE BIJU AUGUSTINE, PULIYANANICKAL HOUSE, ARAKULAM (PO), IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 591.
BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY
RESPONDENTS:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
46
R1, R4 & R5 BY SRI.S.KANNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, STANDING COUNSEL R2 BY SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.2.2021, ALONG WITH WA.255/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 16.03.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
47
'CR'
[W.A.Nos.250, 255, 261, 264, 269, 282, 286, 289, 291, 294, 300, 301, 318, 328, 363, 366, 373 & 391 of 2021]
J U D G M E N T
S. Manikumar, CJ.
Captioned writ appeals are filed challenging the common judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17391/2020 and connected cases, dated 21.12.2020 and the order in R.P.No.1 of 2021 and connected cases dated 28.1.2021, whereby a learned single Judge allowed the writ petition in part, setting aside an order of the National Green Tribunal, Principal bench, New Delhi, (hereinafter called 'NGT') in Original Application No.304 of 2019 and NGT was directed to dispose of the representation of respondents 3 to 115, which was treated as an application by the NGT, afresh, after notice by publication, to those who are affected by the prescription of the stringent distance criteria from residential building and other human inhabited sites, other than what is prevailing in the State for permitting stone quarrying.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
48
interim order pending disposal of the application, if situation warrants, and all other issues were left open.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
49
26.8.2019, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board has issued consent to establish the quarry under section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, which is valid till 31.5.2024. On the basis of application submitted by the appellant, Exhibit P3 letter of intent has been issued by the Director of Mining and Geology. Likewise applications were submitted before the Geologist for approval of the mining plan and State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for obtaining environmental clearance. According to the appellant, the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) gave a favourable recommendation, based on which, the terms of reference was approved by SEIAA in its meeting and in accordance with Appendix IV of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, a public hearing has to be conducted by the State Pollution Control Board.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
50
from residence and public road, environmental clearance had been granted by the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA), subject to certain conditions.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
51
and stone quarry to be maintained. But two points were requested to be considered while revisiting the criteria regarding stone quarry and other issues raised in the application. It was also informed that the CPCB has prepared guidelines regarding pollution control in stone crushers and Central Government have notified standard for stone crushers, however, the standards notified by the Central Government do not prescribe any common stone crusher citing criteria for the country and stone crusher citing criteria is generally prescribed by State Governments/State PCBs based on local needs and conditions.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
52
(Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) and as per the provisions of Minor Mineral Concession Rules made by the respective State Governments by virtue of the powers conferred under section 15 of the MMDR Act, 1957. However, the report concludes by stating that in view of the available information, the minimum distance criteria of 100 meters when blasting is not involved and 200 meters, when blasting is involved from residential/public buildings, inhabited sites, protected monuments, heritage sites, National/State Highway, District roads, public roads, railway line/area, rope way or rope way trestle or station, bridges, dams, reservoir, river, canals, lakes or tanks, or any other locations to be considered for permitting stone quarrying, by State PCBs. As per the Note thereto, it was specified that the regulations for dangerous zones of 500 meters prescribed by Director General of Mines Safety also have to be complied compulsorily and necessary measures should be taken to minimise the impact on environment. But it was made clear that, if any State is already having stringent criteria than the above for Minor Mineral Mining, the same shall be applicable.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
53
NGT and accordingly sought to quash the same. They have sought for further directions to the State Authorities to consider the applications submitted for consents/licence/NOC etc.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
54
notice whatsoever to any affected party.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
55
Rules, 2015, the MMDR Act, 1957, the Air (Prevention and Control) Act, 1981, the Water (Prevention and Control) Act, 1974 and provisions of other Acts were relied upon to substantiate the contentions advanced by the appellants, which would be dealt with hereafter.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
56
“32. The questions remaining to be considered are mainly questions relating to the sustainability of the impugned order, and if it is found that the impugned order is sustainable in law, the questions relating to its applicability. insofar as it is found that the impugned order is vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice, the matter is liable to be remitted to the NGT for fresh consideration. Even otherwise, on the facts of the present case, the questions remaining to be considered are questions that could be decided only by the NGT, the specialized tribunal constituted for the said purpose. I am fortified in this view by the observations made by the Apex Court in Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (SOUTHCO) and Another v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108, while examining the correctness of the judgment rendered by the High Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the context of a case arising under the
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
57
Electricity Act, 2003. The said observations read thus: :
“Should the courts determine on merits of the case or should they preferably answer the preliminary issue or jurisdictional issue arising in the facts of the case and remit the matter for consideration on merits by the competent authority? Again, it is somewhat difficult to state with absolute clarity any principle governing such exercise of jurisdiction. It always will depend upon the facts of a given case. We are of the considered view that interest of administration of justice shall be better subserved if the cases of the present kind are heard by the courts only where they involve primary questions of jurisdiction or the matters which go to the very root of jurisdiction and where the authorities have acted beyond the provisions of the Act. However, it should only be for the specialised tribunal or the appellate authorities to examine the merits of assessment or even the factual matrix of the case”.
Needless to say that the matter has to go back to the NGT.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
58
to 50 meters to make it in tune with the requirement in the KMMC Rules which has nothing to do with the environment pollution caused by the stone quarrying activity. In other words, even according to the SPCB, the present distance criterion of 50 meters from residential buildings and other human inhabited sites for permitting stone quarrying involving blasting is not adequate to prevent, control and abate the pollution arising from stone quarrying activity. Restoring status quo as on the date of the impugned order as regards the distance criterion from residential buildings and other human inhabited sites for permitting stone quarrying pending disposal of the matter by NGT, in the said circumstances, would amount to infraction of the fundamental rights of the citizens of this State under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the circumstances, in the interests of justice, I deem it appropriate to order that the interim order passed by this court on 6.8.2020 as referred to in paragraph 6 shall continue till the disposal of the matter by the NGT.
In the result, the writ petitions are allowed in part, the impugned order of the NGT is set aside and the NGT is directed to dispose of the representation of respondents 3 to 115 which was treated by the NGT as an application, afresh after notice by way of publication to those who are affected by the prescription of the stringent distance criteria from residential building and other human inhabited sites other than what is prevailing in the State, for permitting stone quarrying. It is also ordered that the interim order passed by this court on 6.8.2020 will continue till the disposal of the said application by the NGT. It is also ordered that the NGT would be free to modify the said interim order pending disposal of the application, if situation warrants. All other issues which are not dealt with in this judgment are left open. ”
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
59
of natural justice and therefore, liable to be re-considered by the NGT. A further reading of the judgment shows that the interim order granted by the learned single Judge on 6.8.2020 was directed to be continued till the disposal of the application in question by the NGT. Therefore, on an analysis of the contentions raised in the appeal, it would be clear that the appellants are more aggrieved by the interim order directed to be maintained till a decision is taken in the application.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
60
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
61
case of persons, who are holding valid and current quarrying permit/lease as on the date of the order of the NGT viz., 21.7.2020, no other modifications were made.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
62
Giving relief and compensation as contemplated under Section 15 of the NGT alone is not the objective of Act, 2010. Power of the Tribunal, cannot be circumscribed to only granting relief and compensation. Such a narrow interpretation to the Act, 2010 and provisions, in our view, would clip the wings of the Act for issuing directions/orders of restraint etc., relating to environmental protection and conservation of forest and other natural resources.
“It is the duty of the Courts to give effect to the meaning of an Act, when the meaning can be fairly gathered from the words used, that is
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
63
to say, if one construction will lead to an absurdity while another will give effect to what common sense would show was obviously intended, the construction which would defeat the ends of the Act, must be rejected even if the same words used in the same section, and even the same sentence, have to be construed differently. Indeed the law goes so far as to require the Courts sometimes even to modify the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words if by doing so absurdity and inconsistency can be avoided.”
Act should be construed with reference to other provisions in the same Act, so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. Such a construction has the merit of avoiding any inconsistency or repugnancy either within the statute or between a Section or other parts of
the statute. [Ref. Raj Krishna v. Bonod Kanungo reported in AIR 1954 SC 202].
“SCHEDULE I
[See sections 14(1), 15(1), 17(1)(a), 17(2), 19(4) (j) and 34(1)]
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
64
and the object of the Act. In Rananjaya Singh v. Baji Nath Singh reported in AIR 1954 SC 749, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“The spirit of law may well be an illusive and unsafe guide in the interpretation of the statutes and the supposed spirit can certainly not be given effect to in opposition to the plain language of the sections of the Act, and the rules made thereunder. If all that can be said of these statutory provisions is that construed according to the ordinary, grammatical and natural meaning of their language they work injustice, the appeal must be made to the Parliament and not to the Supreme Court.”
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
65
2010, it is worthwhile to consider the following decisions:
(i) In The State of Bihar v. Hira Lal Kejriwal reported in AIR 1960 SC 47, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 6, held thus:-
“To ascertain the meaning of a section it is not permissible to omit any part of it: the whole section should be read together and an attempt should be made to reconcile both the parts. ......The first part gives life to that Order, and, therefore, the acts authorised under that Order can be done subsequent to the coming into force of the Ordinance. ......The second part appears to have been enacted for the purpose of avoiding this difficulty or, at any rate, to dispel the ambiguity.”
(ii) In S. Gurmej Singh v. S. Pratap Singh reported in AIR 1960 SC 122, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 9, held as follows:
“It is an elementary rule that construction of a section is to be made of all the parts together and not of one part only by itself, and that phrases are to be construed according to the rules of grammar.”
(iii) In A. R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak reported in (1984) 2 SCC 500, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:-
“It is a well established cannon of construction that the court should read the section as it is and cannot rewrite it to suit its convenience; nor does any cannon of construction permit the court to read the section in such manner as to render it to some extent otiose.”
(iv) In Balasinor Nagrik Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Babubhai Shankerlal
Pandya reported in (1987) 1 SCC 606, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph 4, held as follows:
“ It is an elementary rule that construction of a section is to be made of all parts together. It is not permissible to omit any part of it . For, the principle that the statute must be read as a whole is equally applicable to different parts of the same section.”
(emphasis supplied)
(v) In Union of India v. Dileep Kumar Singh [AIR 2015 SC 1420], the Hon'ble
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
66
Supreme Court held that marginal note appended to Section 47 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1955 makes it clear that idea of Section 47 was not to discriminate against employees who acquire disability during service. Relevant paras read thus:
“16. It is well settled that the provisions of a statute must be read harmoniously together. However, if this is not possible then it is settled law that where there is a conflict between two Sections, and you cannot reconcile the two, you have to determine which is the leading provision and which the subordinate provision, and which must give way to the other. This statement of the law is to be found in Institute of Patent Agents & Ors. v. Joseph Lockwood, [1894 A.C. 347 at 360]. Lord Herschell, L.C., stated this, as follows:
"Well, there is a conflict sometimes between two sections to be found in the same Act. You have to try and reconcile them as best you may. If you cannot, you have to determine which is the leading provision and which the subordinate provision, and which must give way to the other."
"A legislative instrument must be construed on the prima facie basis that its provisions are intended to give effect to harmonious goals. Where conflict appears to arise from the language of particular provisions, the conflict must be alleviated, so far as possible, by adjusting the meaning of the competing provisions to achieve that result which will best give effect to the purpose and language of those provisions while maintaining the unity of all the statutory provisions. Reconciling conflict provisions will often require the court "to determine which is the leading provision and which the subordinate provision, and which must give way to the other". Only by determining the hierarchy of the provisions will it be possible in many cases to give each provision the meaning which best gives effect to its purpose and language while maintaining the unity of the statutory scheme." (at pages 509-510)
extracted below:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
67
(i) In Pratap Chandra Mehta v. State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. [(2011) 9 SCC 573], while discussing about the conferment of extensive meaning, it has been opined that the Court would be justified in giving the provision a purposive construction to perpetuate the object of the Act while ensuring that such rules framed are within the field circumscribed by the parent Act. It is also clear that it may not always be absolutely necessary to spell out guidelines for delegated legislation when discretion is vested in such delegated bodies. In such cases, the language of the rule framed as well as the purpose sought to be achieved would be the relevant factors to be considered by the Court .
(ii) In Sarah Mathew and Ors. v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director K.M. Cherian and Ors . [(2014) 2 SCC 62], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
“32. There can be no dispute about the rules of interpretation cited by the counsel. It is true that there is no ambiguity in the relevant provisions. But, it must be borne in mind that the word 'cognizance' has not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure This Court had to therefore interpret this word. We have adverted to that interpretation. In fact, we have proceeded to answer this reference on the basis of that interpretation and keeping in mind that special connotation acquired by the word 'cognizance'. Once that interpretation is accepted, Chapter XXXVI along with the heading has to be understood in that light. The rule of purposive construction can be applied in such a situation. A purposive construction of an enactment is one which gives effect to the legislative purpose by following the literal meaning of the enactment where that meaning is in accordance with the legislative purpose or by applying a strained meaning where the literal meaning is not in accordance with the legislative purpose (See: Francis Bennion on Statutory Interpretation). After noticing this definition given by Francis Bennion in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut (2007) 3 SCC 700, this Court noted that more often than not, literal interpretation of a statute or a provision of a statute results in absurdity. Therefore, while interpreting statutory provisions, the courts should keep in mind the objectives or purpose for which statute has been enacted . In light of this observation, we are of the opinion that if in the instant case literal
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
68
interpretation appears to be in any way in conflict with the legislative intent or is leading to absurdity, purposive interpretation will have to be adopted.
(emphasis supplied)
(iii) In Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishna Lulla [(2016) 3 SCC 619], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
“31. The aforesaid two reasons given by me, in addition to the reasons already indicated in the judgment of my learned Brother, would clearly demonstrate that provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act require purposive interpretation so that the aforesaid objective/ purpose of such a provision is achieved thereby. The principle of 'purposive interpretation' or 'purposive construction' is based on the understanding that the Court is supposed to attach that meaning to the provisions which serve the 'purpose' behind such a provision. The basic approach is to ascertain what is it designed to accomplish? To put it otherwise, by interpretative process the Court is supposed to realise the goal that the legal text is designed to realise. As Aharan Barak puts it:
“Purposive interpretation is based on three components: language, purpose, and discretion. Language shapes the range of semantic possibilities within which the interpreter acts as a linguist. Once the interpreter defines the range, he or she chooses the legal meaning of the text from among the (express or implied) semantic
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
69
possibilities. The semantic component thus sets the limits of interpretation by restricting the interpreter to a legal meaning that the text can bear in its (public or private) language .”
32. of the aforesaid three components, namely, language, purpose and discretion 'of the Court', insofar as purposive component is concerned, this is the ratio juris, the purpose at the core of the text. This purpose is the values, goals, interests, policies and aims that the text is designed to actualize. It is the function that the text is designed to fulfill.
33. We may also emphasize that the statutory interpretation of a provision is never static but is always dynamic. Though literal rule of interpretation, till some time ago, was treated as the 'golden rule', it is now the doctrine of purposive interpretation which is predominant, particularly in those cases where literal interpretation may not serve the purpose or may lead to absurdity. If it brings about an end which is at variance with the purpose of statute, that cannot be countenanced. Not only legal process thinkers such as Hart and Sacks rejected intentionalism as a grand strategy for statutory interpretation, and in its place they offered purposivism, this principle is now widely applied by the Courts not only in this country but in many other legal systems as well .”
(emphasis supplied)
(iv) In Abhiram Singh and Ors. v. C.D. Commachen (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors . [(2017) 2 SCC 629, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
“ 36. The conflict between giving a literal interpretation or a purposive interpretation to a statute or a provision in a statute is perennial. It can be settled only if the draftsman gives a long-winded explanation in drafting the law but this would result in an awkward draft that might well turn out to be unintelligible. The interpreter has, therefore, to consider not only the text of the law but the context in which the law was enacted and the social context in which the law should be interpreted. This was articulated rather felicitously by Lord Bingham of Cornhill in R. v. Secretary of State for Health ex parte Quintavalle [2003] UKHL 13 when it was said:
“8. The basic task of the court is to ascertain and give effect to the true meaning of what Parliament has said in the enactment to be construed. But that is not to say that
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
70
attention should be confined and a literal interpretation given to the particular provisions which give rise to difficulty. Such an approach not only encourages immense prolixity in drafting, since the draftsman will feel obliged to provide expressly for every contingency which may possibly arise. It may also (under the banner of loyalty to the will of Parliament) lead to the frustration of that will, because undue concentration on the minutiae of the enactment may lead the court to neglect the purpose which Parliament intended to achieve when it enacted the statute. Every statute other than a pure consolidating statute is, after all, enacted to make some change, or address some problem, or remove some blemish, or effect some improvement in the national life. The court's task, within the permissible bounds of interpretation, is to give effect to Parliament's purpose. So the controversial provisions should be read in the context of the statute as a whole, and the statute as a whole should be read in the historical context of the situation which led to its enactment.
9. There is, I think, no inconsistency between the Rule that statutory language retains the meaning it had when Parliament used it and the Rule that a statute is always speaking. If Parliament, however long ago, passed an Act applicable to dogs, it could not properly be interpreted to apply to cats; but it could properly be held to apply to animals which were not regarded as dogs when the Act was passed but are so regarded now. The meaning of "cruel and unusual punishments" has not changed over the years since 1689, but many punishments which were not then thought to fall within that category would now be held to do so. The courts have frequently had to grapple with the question whether a modern invention or activity falls within old statutory language: see Bennion, Statutory Interpretation, 4th ed. (2002) Part XVIII, Section 288 . A revealing example is found in Grant v. Southwestern and County Properties Ltd. [1975] Ch 185, where Walton J had to decide whether a tape recording fell within the expression "document" in the Rules of the Supreme Court. Pointing out (page 190) that the furnishing of information had been treated as one of the main functions of a document, the judge concluded that the tape
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
71
recording was a document.”
“....... the adoption of a purposive approach to construction of statutes generally, and the 1990 Act [Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990] in particular, is amply justified on wider grounds. In Cabell v. Markham (1945) 148 F 2d 737 Justice Learned Hand explained the merits of purposive interpretation, at p.739:
“Of course it is true that the words used, even in their literal sense, are the primary, and ordinarily the most reliable, source of interpreting the meaning of any writing: be it a statute, a contract, or anything else. But it is one of the surest indexes of a mature developed jurisprudence not to make a fortress out of the dictionary; but to remember that statutes always have some purpose or object to accomplish, whose sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning.
The pendulum has swung towards purposive methods of construction. This change was not initiated by the teleological approach of European Community jurisprudence, and the influence of European legal culture generally, but it has been accelerated by European ideas: see, however, a classic early statement of the purposive approach by Lord Blackburn in River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson (1877) 2 App Cas 743, 763. In any event, nowadays the shift towards purposive interpretation is not in doubt. The qualification is that the degree of liberality permitted is influenced by the context, e.g. social welfare legislation and tax statutes may have to be approached somewhat differently. ”
[Emphasis supplied by us].
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
72
To put it in the words of Lord Millett: "We are all purposive constructionists now.”
In Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, it is said that: “General judicial adoption of the term 'purposive construction' is recent, but the concept is not new. Viscount Dilhorne, citing Coke, said that while it is now fashionable to talk of a purposive construction of a statute the need for such a construction has been recognized since the seventeenth century.12 In fact the recognition goes considerable further back than that. The difficulties over statutory interpretation belong to the language, and there is unlikely to be anything very novel or recent about their solution........ Little has changed over problems of verbal meaning since the Barons of the Exchequer arrived at their famous resolution in Heydon's Case (1584) 3 Co. Rep 7a. Legislation is still about remedying what is thought to be a defect in the law. Even the most 'progressive' legislator, concerned to implement some wholly normal concept of social justice, would be constrained to admit that if the existing law accommodated the notion there would be no need to change it. No legal need that is ....”
[Emphasis supplied by us]
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
73
interpretation of the provisions whether in relation to a taxing statute or a penal statute. In IRC v. Trustees of Sir John Aird's Settlement [1984 CH 382 : (1983) 3 All ER 481 (CA)], the Court observed as follows:
57. It is an overriding duty of the Court while interpreting the provision of a statute that the intention of the legislature is not frustrated and any doubt or ambiguity must be resolved by recourse to the Rules of purposive construction. In Balram Kumawat v. Union of India [ 2003(7) SCC 628], this Court observed as follows:
Further, this Court observed as follows:
(emphasis supplied)
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
74
(v) In K.H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob and Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 4681], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
“ 13. While interpreting a statute, the problem or mischief that the statute was designed to remedy should first be identified and then a construction that suppresses the problem and advances the remedy should be adopted. It is settled law that exemption clauses in beneficial or social welfare legislations should be given strict construction10. It was observed in Shivram A. Shiroor v. Radhabai Shantram Kowshik (supra) that the exclusionary provisions in a beneficial legislation should be construed strictly so as to give a wide amplitude to the principal object of the legislation and to prevent its evasion on deceptive grounds. Similarly, in Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act v. NSW Aboriginal Land Council [2008] HCA 48, Kirby, J. held that the principle of providing purposive construction to beneficial legislations mandates that exceptions in such legislations should be construed narrowly. ”
(emphasis supplied)
(vi) In D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society and Ors. v. Director of Public Instructions and Ors. [(2019) 9 SCC 185], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
“20. The principle of purposive construction of a statute is a well-recognised principle which has been incorporated in our jurisprudence. While giving a purposive interpretation, a court is required to place itself in the chair of the Legislature or author of the statute. The provision should be construed in such a manner to ensure that the object of the Act is fulfilled. Obviously, if the language of the Act is clear then the language has to be followed, and the court cannot give its own interpretation. However, if the language admits of two meanings then the court can refer to the Objects and Reasons, and find out the true meaning of the provisions as intended by the authors of the enactment. Justice S.B. Sinha in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia and Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 279 held as follows:
“ 51. ...to interpret a statute in a reasonable manner, the court must place itself in the chair of reasonable legislator/author. So done, the Rules of purposive construction have to be resorted to which would require the construction of the Act in such a manner so as to see that the object of the Act is fulfilled; which in turn would lead the beneficiary under the statutory scheme to fulfil its constitutional obligations as held by the court inter alia in Ashoka Marketing Ltd .”
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
75
(emphasis supplied)
Justice Sinha quoted with approval the following passage from Barak's treatise on Purposive Interpretation in Law, which reads as follows:
“ 52. ...Hart and Sachs also appear to treat 'purpose' as a subjective concept. I say 'appear' because, although Hart and Sachs claim that the interpreter should imagine himself or herself in the legislator's shoes, they introduce two elements of objectivity: First, the interpreter should assume that the legislature is composed of reasonable people seeking to achieve reasonable goals in a reasonable manner; and second, the interpreter should accept the non-rebuttable presumption that members of the legislative body sought to fulfill their constitutional duties in good faith. This formulation allows the interpreter to inquire not into the subjective intent of the author, but rather the intent the author would have had, had he or she acted reasonably .”
(emphasis supplied)
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
76
the NGT does not amount to a dispute, which can be considered by the NGT under section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010 and it is so advanced by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Tachi Taga Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari [(2018)11 SCC 734].
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
77
Subhash Chandra Jaiswal [(2017) 5 SCC 163].
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
78
541] and Standard Chartered Bank v. Dharminder Bhohi [(2013) 15 SCC 341] were pressed into service to canvass for the proposition that NGT does not have the powers to initiate suo motu proceedings relating to a dispute, which can be adjudicated under section 14 or matters which can be decided under section 16 of the NGT Act.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
79
relevant portion of the order for convenience is extracted hereunder :
“9. Accordingly, it is ordered that in cases where a quarrying permit/quarrying lease issued under the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral concession Rules, 2015 is valid and current as on 21.7.2020 (date of the impugned order rendered by the Tribunal), which do not fulfil the new distance norms stipulated by the NGT order, then it shall be ensured that status quo regarding the distance criteria based on Rule 10(f) and Rule 40(i) of the Kerala Minor Mineral concession Rules may be maintained by the respondent authorities concerned during validity period of such current permits/lease. Needless to say, in such cases, the competent authorities concerned can insist for strict compliance of the other applicable norms, guidelines, orders, etc. However, it is made clear that in the case of the applications of fresh grant of quarrying permits/quarrying leases or applications for renewal of quarrying permits/leases, which do not fulfil the abovesaid impugned distance criteria stipulated in the order of the Tribunal, then such requests need not be granted for the time being. But at the same time, in those cases, such fresh or renewal application, including that for EC, PCB consent, explosive licence, local body licences, etc. in that regard may be processed and such applications need not be rejected solely on the ground of non-fulfilment of the new distance norms stipulated in the impugned order dated 21.7.2020 of the NGT. This order will be in force for a period of 2 weeks.”
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
80
Kerala, which are underway will be stalled, running industries have to be eventually stopped for want of minerals and substantial prejudice and hardship has been caused and is continuing to be caused, which materially affects the larger public interest, and further that the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge does not lay down the correct proposition of law and accordingly liable to be set aside.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
81
“ ORDER
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
82
observed:
“2. Accordingly, a report has been filed by the Kerala State PCB on 17.12.2019 retreating the distance criteria of 50 mtrs. and mentioning that no study is available with the CPCB.
3. We are of the view, ad earlier observed that the distance of 50 mtrs. for stone quarry, particularly when blasts are involved, is highly inadequate and can have deleterious effect on noise and air pollution, environment and public health.
4. In view of the above, we direct the CPCB to examine and lay down more stringent conditions and appropriately longer distance within one month and convey the same to the State Boards. The State Board may take further action accordingly. Compliance reports be filed before the next date by email at [email protected].”
“6.0 conclusion:
In view of available information, following minimum distance criteria may be considered for permitting stone quarrying by SPCBs.
| Mining Type | Minimum distance | Locations |
|---|---|---|
| A When Blasting is not involved |
100 m | Residential/public buildings, inhabited |
| B When Blasting is | 200m ** | sites, locations to be |
| involved | considered byStates |
**Note: The regulations for danger zone (500m) prescribed by Directorate General of Mines Safety also have to be complied compulsorily and necessary measures should be taken to minimise the impact on environment.
However, if any states is already having stringent criteria than the above for
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
83
minor mineral mining (i.e., more prescribed distances than the above), the same shall be applicable.
A copy of this order be sent to the CPCB and all the State {Cbs/PCCs by email for compliance”
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
84
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
85
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
86
the Act but not defined therein and defined in the Water Act, 1974, the Air Act, 1981, the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and other enactments specified therein shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in those Acts. Therefore, it can be seen that the National Green Tribunal is entrusted with the power to protect the environment taking note of the appropriate environmental laws prescribed in Schedule I of Act, 2010.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
87
falling within the jurisdiction referred to in sub-section (3) pertaining to the applications and appeals.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
88
55.True, a period of 6 months is provided as the limitation for entertaining application for adjudication of the dispute from the date on which the cause of action arose first. It has also the power to condone delay on sufficient cause within a further period not exceeding 60 days. Section 15 empowers the Tribunal to grant relief, compensation and restitution. It is appreciating the power conferred under section 15, the learned single Judge has held that the Tribunal has suo motu powers to consider any application submitted by any person in order to provide reliefs. Sections 14 & 15 of the Act, 2010 is extracted hereunder for convenience:
“ 14. Tribunal to settle disputes . -(1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
89
(including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.
(2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the questions referred to in sub-section (1) and settle such disputes and pass order thereon. (3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.
a) relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule 1 (including accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance);
(b) for restitution of property damaged;
(c) for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as the Tribunal may think fit.
(2) The relief and compensation and restitution of property and environment referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) shall be in addition to the relief paid of payable under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991(6 of 1991).
(3) No application for grant of any compensation or relief or restitution of property or environment under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of five years from the date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose:
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
90
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.
(4) The Tribunal may, having regard to the damage to public health, property and environment, divide the compensation or relief payable under separate heads specified in Schedule 11 so as to provide compensation or relief to the claimants and for restitution of the damaged property or environment, as it may think fi.t
(5) Every claimant of the compensation or relief under this Act shall intimate to the Tribunal about the application filed to, or, as the case may be, compensation or relief received from, any other court or authority.”
the Tribunal independent of other provisions of Chapter III of Act, 2010. Subsection(3) only specifies that no application for grant of any compensation or relief or restitution of property or environment under section 15 shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of 5 years from the date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose. However, the proviso makes
it clear that it has the power to enhance the period by 60 days to file the application on sufficient cause. It is relevant and important to note that section 15(1) enables the Tribunal to pass such orders as contemplated in clauses (a) to (c) therein.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
91
It is also equally important to note that sub-section (5) thereto empowers the Tribunal to consider claims of compensation or relief to any claimant after ascertaining as to whether the claimant has received any compensation from any other court or authority. Section 16 confers appellate jurisdiction on the Tribunal from the orders passed by the authorities under the enactments specified in Schedule I. Section 18(1) dealing with application or appeal to Tribunal specifies that each applications under sections 14 & 15 or an appeal under section 16 shall be made to the Tribunal in such form and containing such particulars and documents.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
92
a trial in order to identify the issues that have been placed before it by any person
or which has come to its knowledge in order to provide relief in contemplation of section 15(1) of the Act. It is also relevant to note that under section 20 of Act, 2010, the Tribunal, while passing any order or decision or award, shall apply the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.
Mantri Techzone (Pvt.)Ltd v. Forward Foundation and Others [(2019)SCC Online SC 322]. Paragraphs 41 to 46 read thus:
“ 41. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is provided under Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Act. Section 14 provides the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
93
substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment) is involved. However, such question should arise out of implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.
42. The Tribunal has also jurisdiction under Section 15(1)(a) of the Act to provide relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in Schedule I. Further, under Sections 15(1)(b) and 15(1)(c), the Tribunal can provide for restitution of property damaged and for restitution of the environment for such area or areas as the Tribunal may think fit. It is noteworthy that Sections 15(1) (b) and (c) have not been made relatable to Schedule I enactments of the Act. Rightly so, this grants a glimpse into the wide range of powers that the Tribunal has been cloaked with respect to restoration of the environment.
43. Section 15(1)(c) of the Act is an entire island of power and jurisdiction read with Section 20 of the Act. The principles of sustainable development, precautionary principle and polluter pays, propounded by this Court by way of multiple judicial pronouncements, have now been embedded as a bedrock of environmental jurisprudence under the NGT Act. Therefore, wherever the environment and ecology are being compromised and jeopardised, the Tribunal can apply Section 20 for taking restorative measures in the interest of the environment.
44. The NGT Act being a beneficial legislation, the power bestowed upon the Tribunal would not be read narrowly. An interpretation which furthers the interests of environment must be given a broader reading. (See KishoreLal v. ESI Corpn. [ Kishore Lal v. ESI Corpn., (2007) 4 SCC 579 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 1] , para 17.) The existence of the Tribunal without its
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
94
broad restorative powers under Section 15(1)(c ) read with Section 20 of the Act, would render it ineffective and toothless, and shall betray the legislative intent in setting up a specialised Tribunal specifically to address environmental concerns. The Tribunal, specially constituted with Judicial Members as well as with experts in the field of environment, has a legal obligation to provide for preventive and restorative measures in the interest of the environment.
45. Section 15 of the Act provides power and jurisdiction, independent of Section 14 thereof. Further, Section 14(3) juxtaposed with Section 15(3) of the Act, are separate provisions for filing distinct applications before the Tribunal with distinct periods of limitation, thereby amply demonstrating that jurisdiction of the Tribunal flows from these sections (i.e. Sections 14 and 15 of the Act) independently. The limitation provided in Section 14 is a period of 6 months from the date on which the cause of action first arose and whereas in Section 15 it is 5 years. Therefore, the legislative intent is clear to keep Sections 14 and 15 as self-contained jurisdictions.
46. Further, Section 18 of the Act recognises the right to file applications each under Section 14 as well as Section 15. Therefore, it cannot be argued that Section 14 provides jurisdiction to the Tribunal while Section 15 merely supplements the same with powers. As stated supra the typical nature of the Tribunal, its breadth of powers as provided under the statutory provisions of the Act as well as the scheduled enactments, cumulatively, leave no manner of doubt that the only tenable interpretation to these provisions would be to read the provisions broadly in favour of cloaking the Tribunal with effective authority. An interpretation that is in favour of conferring jurisdiction should be preferred rather than one taking away jurisdiction. "
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
95
Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority of India v. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch and others [(2020)SCC Online SC 572]. Paragraphs 38 to 43 are extracted hereunder:
“ 38. A conjoint reading of Sections 14, 15 and the Schedules would lead one to infer that the NGT has circumscribed jurisdiction to deal with, adjudicate, and wherever needed, direct measures such as payment of compensation, or make restitutionary directions in cases where the violation (i.e. harm caused due to pollution or exposure to hazards, etc.) are the result of infraction of any enactment listed in the first schedule. Yet, that, interpretation, in the opinion of this court, is not warranted.
39. The reference to Schedule II, in Section 15(4) is not merely by way of events which are actionable in relation to harm caused due to the acts resulting in violation of any enactment under Schedule I. The wide language of that provision enables the tribunal (NGT) to direct, inter alia, payment of compensation, “having regard to the damage to public health, property and environment”. This interpretation is borne out by a reading of Section 17(2) regarding the apportionment of liability for payment of compensation.
40. In the decision of this court reported as Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi, this court held that ponds constituted public utility and were meant for common use. The court held that ponds could not be allotted or commercialised, and that filling up of ponds was illegal. Recently, in Jitendra Singh v. Ministry of Environment, the Court quoted and applied the observations in Hinch Lal (supra), in the context of an appeal directed against an order of the NGT which had summarily dismissed an application under
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
96
Sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act seeking directions to cease the filling up of ponds in the Greater Noida Industrial Development Area.
41. Long ago, in State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s.Hind Stone, this court made following observations:
“6. Rivers, Forests, Minerals and such other resources constitute a Nation's natural wealth. These resources are not to be frittered away and exhausted by any one generation. Every generation owes a duty to all succeeding generations to develop and conserve the natural resources of the nation in the best possible way. It is in the interest of mankind. It is in the interest of the nation. It is recognised by Parliament. Parliament has declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the Regulation of mines and the development of minerals. It has enacted the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 …”
42. Likewise, in Lafarge Umiam Mining (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India , these pertinent observations were made:
“75. Universal human dependence on the use of environmental resources for the most basic needs renders it impossible to refrain from altering the environment. As a result, environmental conflicts are ineradicable and environmental protection is always a matter of degree, inescapably requiring choices as to the appropriate level of environmental protection and the risks which are to be regulated. This aspect is recognised by the concepts of “sustainable development”. It is equally well settled by the decision of this Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India that environment has different facets and care of the environment is an ongoing process. These concepts Rule out the formulation of an across-the-board principle as it would depend on the facts of each case whether diversion in a given case should be permitted or not, barring “no go” areas (whose identification would again depend on undertaking of due
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
97
diligence exercise). In such cases, the margin of appreciation doctrine would apply.”
43. Recently, in State of Meghalaya v. All Dimasa Students Union, DimaHasao District Committee, this court had affirmed a part of the decision of the NGT issuing directions in respect of large-scale mining in the state of Meghalaya, on the ground that it had an adverse impact on the environment. This was despite the fact that mining and the subject of mines is not specified in the list of enactments under the first schedule. The court also approved the NGT's directions, appointing experts, to assess the impact of such mining on the environment."
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
98
for future guidance. In these circumstances, even the panoply of the NGT's powers under the NGT Act, which include considering regulatory directions issued by expert regulatory bodies under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Bio Diversity Act, 2002, it has to be held that general directions for future guidance to avoid or prevent injury to the environment for appropriate assimilation in relevant rules, can be given by the NGT.”
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
99
they arise for its consideration and therefore, it was submitted that in a cause before it, NGT cannot go on to adjudicate on concerns of violation of fundamental rights and once the contours of a subject matter traverse the scope of appeal from a grant of environmental clearance, the merits review by the Tribunal cannot traverse beyond the scope of jurisdiction vested in it by the statute. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Techi Tagi Tara supra was pressed into service to contend that in order to exercise the powers under sections 14, 15 & 18 by the NGT, there must be a substantial question relating to the environment and that question must arise in a dispute and it should not be an academic question and further that there must also be a claimant raising the dispute and which dispute is capable of settlement by the NGT by the grant of some reliefs which could be in the nature of compensation or restitution of property, damage or restitution of the environment and any other incidental or ancillary relief connected therewith.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
100
Sterlite Industries supra considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court was in regard to the appellate jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal vis-a-vis the original order of the Tamil Nadu PCB made under section 27 of the Water Act and section 21 of the Air Act, which has no bearing to the issue at hand, and the question actually considered therein was, since no decision has been made by the appellate authority under the Water Act or Air Act, whether a direct appeal to NGT against the original order of TN PCB was maintainable. The judgment of the Apex Court in Goa Foundation supra was also pressed into service, wherein the question considered was in respect of illegal and uncontrolled and unmonitored mining affecting environment and revenue and expired mining leases in the State of Goa vis-a-vis the power exercised by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in which the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the powers of the court to give a direction prohibiting mining activities upto a certain distance from the boundaries of national parks or wildlife sanctuaries. Therein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also considered the power of the Central Government under rule 5 of the Environment Protection Rules, 1986, to prohibit carrying on of mining operations in areas which are proximate to a wildlife sanctuary or a national park. According to us, though various aspects of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the Rules thereto, were considered, the Hon'ble Apex Court never had an occasion to consider the power of the NGT, vis-a-vis the provisions of the NGT Act, 2010. Therefore, the
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
101
findings contained thereunder cannot be pressed into service for the purpose of adjudicating an issue as to whether the NGT is vested with suo motu powers under the provisions of Act, 2010.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
102
categoric and specific powers conferred on the NGT under Chapter III as discussed above.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
103
1957 and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, may also have to be referred to, to sort out the question raised. The Environment Protection Act is enacted with the intention of protecting and improving the environment and for matters connected therewith. Under section 2(a) environment is defined to mean, “water, air and land and the inter-relationship which exists among and between water, air and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants, microorganisms and property”. The said definition is in pari materia with the definition of environment under section 2(c) of the NGT Act, 2010. Moreover section 2(2) of NGT Act, 2010, as we have stated above takes in all the environmental laws specified in the First Schedule of the said Act which includes Environment Protection Act and by virtue of the said provision wherever the expressions are not defined under the said Act, the definition provided under the laws in the Schedule would be applicable to assign meaning to the expressions used in the NGT Act, 2010.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
104
the environment.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
105
criteria by and between the quarry and residential and other installations. It is also clear from section 5A that any person aggrieved by any directions issued under section 5 of Act, 1986, to appeal to the National Green Tribunal established under NGT Act, 2010. Added to that it is submitted that section 6 empowers only the Central Government by publication of notification in the official gazette to make rules in respect of all or any of the matters referred in section 3. The paramount contention advanced in that regard is on the basis of section 6(2)(a) & (b) of Act, 1986, which empowers the Central Government to make rules in regard to the standards of quality of air, water or soil for various areas and purposes and also to prohibit and restrict the location of industries and the carrying on of processes and operations of the different areas.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
106
anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than Act, 1986. So also section 25 of Act, 1986 is pressed into service, which is the rule making power of the Central Government which stipulates that the Central Government may by notification in the official gazette make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act, which power includes also to fix the standards in excess of which the environmental pollutants shall not be discharged or emitted. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for appellants is that the NGT was not right in taking up the role of the Central Government and issuing directions instead of granting liberty to the Central Government to do so as envisioned by the Parliament under the Act, 1986.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
107
areas in order to exemplify that the Central Government and the State Government alone are the authority to carry out the provisions of Act and Rules, 1986.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
108
NGT is not empowered to fix any standards without undertaking any study in regard to the likelihood of the pollutants remaining in the air at a distance of 100 and 200 meters as insisted upon by the NGT with regard to a blasting and non-blasting quarry respectively. Annexure 1 guideline under Schedule VI of the Rules, 1986 was also brought to our notice, wherein para 7 specifies that the standards mentioned in the Schedule shall also apply to all other effluents discharged such as mining and mineral processing activities and sewage.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
109
functions relating thereto and for matters connected therewith.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
110
contained under section 2(2) of the said Act. Sections 3 & 4 of Act, 1981 specifies that the Central Pollution Control Board and State PCB constituted under sections 3 & 4 of the Water Act, 1974 shall perform the powers and functions under the Act, 1981.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
111
standards for the sewage and trade effluent and for the quality of receiving water (not being water in an inter- State Stream) resulting from the discharge of effluent and to classify the waters of the State.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
112
Government may give to it: provided that where a direction given by the State Government is inconsistent with the directions given by the Central Board, the matter shall be referred to the Central Government for its decisions. Analysing the aforesaid provisions of the Air Act, 1981, we are of the firm view that the Central Board as well as the State Boards are vested with sufficient, ample and adequate powers to deal with the air pollution. There is no case advanced by the appellants that either the Central Board or State Boards have violated any of the directions given by the Central Government or for that matter, the Kerala PCB has violated any of the directions in writing issued by the Central Board or the Central Government. Section 19 deals with the power to declare air pollution control areas by the State Government in consultation with the State Board by notification in the official gazette and section 21 imposes restriction on use of certain industrial plants without the previous consent of the State Board and the procedure for securing consent is prescribed thereunder. Even though no distance criteria is fixed under the Air Act, 1981 or the Rules, 1982 framed thereunder, sub-section (5) of section 21 enables the State Board to impose various conditions delineated thereunder and to impose such other conditions as the State Board may specify on that behalf. Sub-section (7) thereto specifies that where a person to whom consent has been granted by the State Board under sub-section (4) of section 21, transfers his interest in the industry to any other person, such consent shall be deemed to have been granted to such
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
113
other person and he shall be bound to comply with all the conditions subject to which it was granted as if the consent was granted to him originally. Section 22 of Act, 1981 requires any person operating any industrial plant in any air pollution control area to adhere to the standards fixed by the State Board under sections 17(1)(g) of Act, 1981.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
114
conferred under section 31B of Act, 1981, is referable to section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010 enabling the NGT to have the appellate jurisdiction to deal with the orders passed by the Air Appellate Authority.
82.Similar provisions are there in the Water Act, 1974. It is an admitted fact that under the Air Act, 1981, or the Rules thereto, any standards are fixed with respect to the ambient air quality vis-a-vis the distance criteria, however, it is an undisputed fact that while the State Board is issuing consent, standard condition of 50 meters is fixed from residential buildings and other installations. The discussion of facts and the law made above would make it clear that even though powers are conferred on the Central Board and the State Boards to lay down standards for the quality of air in order to regulate and control the air pollution, they have not done so and is thus taking into account the non-exercise of power by the statutory authorities under law, NGT has directed the Central PCB to submit reports as stated in the foregoing paragraphs, and after considering the reports, the NGT has passed an order fixing the distance criteria in regard to quarrying activity, which according to us, cannot be said to be erroneous or without jurisdiction.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
115
been advanced by the appellants that the Tribunal has not undertaken any study in regard to the distance criteria and therefore, it is bad and illegal, we are unable to subscribe to the said view in view of the study conducted by the Central PCB, report submitted and also in view of the presence of the expert members in Tribunal, who are technically qualified to deal with such issues. That said, when a query was posed to the learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board as to how the distance of 50 meters was fixed, it was pointed out that it could be only by virtue of the provisions contained under Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. Therefore, it is clear that even the State PCB has not conducted any study before imposing the distance criteria and it just followed the provisions of rule 40(1)(i) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, which stipulates the lessee shall not carry on or allow to be carried on any quarrying operations at or to any points within a distance of 100 meters from any railway line except with the previous written permission of the railway administration concerned and any bridge on national highway or 50 meters from any reservoir, tanks, canals, rivers, bridges, public roads, other public works, residential buildings, the boundary walls or places of worship, burial grounds, burning ghats or 1 Km. from the boundaries of national park or wildlife sanctuaries except with the previous permission of the authorities concerned or the Government or the competent authority.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
116
specific power is conferred on a statutory authority under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, to deal with any situations of mining operations of minor minerals, the NGT was not right in intruding into the powers of the statutory authority. But the fact remains that a competent authority specified under the Rules, 2015 is defined under rule 2(1)(iii) to mean the authority or officer appointed by the Government by notification in the official gazette to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the competent authority under the Rules, 2015. The Rules, 2015, was enacted by virtue of section 15(1) of the MMDR Act, 1957 for the purpose of grant of quarrying permit/lease/licence and collection of royalty consolidated royalty, dead rent etc. True, under rule 10(f) of Rules, 2015, dealing with the distance criteria to be incorporated in a quarrying permit as it originally stood, the second proviso thereto comprehended that in case where explosives are used for quarrying, the permit holder shall not carry on or allowed to be carried on any quarrying operations at or to any points within the distance as specified by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board from time to time for granting consent to operate such quarrying as approved by the Government from any railway line, any bridge, reservoir, tanks, residential buildings etc. or places of worship or 50 meters from any burial grounds or burning ghats or village roads or forest lands. In fact clause (f) of rule 10 was substituted as per SRO 346/2017 dated 23.6.2017, by which the second proviso thereto discussed above was removed and therefore, if at
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
117
all any power enjoyed by the competent authority under the Rules, 2015 in regard to insistence for any consent issued by the State PCB is no more in existence.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
118
the State Pollution Control Board. We also do not think that any of the provisions of
the MMDR Act, 1957 would support the contentions advanced by the appellants except the fact that by virtue of the powers conferred under section 15, the State Government have enacted the Rules, 2015 as discussed above. Lastly a contention was advanced that the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, has no jurisdiction to consider an issue in regard to quarries functioning in the State of Kerala placing reliance on the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Ordinary Places of Sitting of the National Green Tribunal – Territorial Jurisdiction – Notification, which reads thus:
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
*NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ACT, 2010- ORDINARY PLACES OF SITTING OF THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL -TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION -
NOTIFICATION
'[In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (19 of 2010) and in supersession of the notifications of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Environment and Forests number S.O 1003 (E), dated the 5th May, 2011 and number S.O 1908(E), dated the 17th August, 2011, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby specifies the the ordinary places of sitting and the territorial jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal as under -
| Sl.No. | Zone | Place of Sitting | Territorial Jurisdiction |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Northern | Delhi (Principal place) | Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, |
| Punjab,Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & | |||
| Kashmir Goa, National Capital Territory of | |||
| Delhi and Union territories of Chandigarh, | |||
| Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli. |
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
119
| 2. | Western | Pune | Maharashtra and Gujarat. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3. | Central | Bhopal | Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh |
| 4. | Southern | Chennai |
Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Union territories of Puducherry and Lakshadweep. |
| 5. | Eastern | Kolkata |
West Bengal, Odisha, Bihar, Jharkhand, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura, Sikkim and Union territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands,] |
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
120
and the drainage to the properties consequent to the functioning of quarries in the country, as such and probably, and that the representation made from Kerala was an eye opener to the NGT to discuss, deliberate and adjudicate on the issues at the national level, in particular, substantial question relating to environment, including enforcement of any right relating to environment involved and such questions arising out of implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I to NGT Act, 2010, which includes, (1) The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (2) The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1977 (3) The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (4) The Air ( Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (5) The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (6) The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 and (7) The Biological Diversity Act, 2002. What is important is the power exercised by the NGT under the provisions of Act, 2010 and other consequential Acts. We have no doubt to say that the Principal Bench and Zonal Benches are governed by the provisions of the NGT Act, 2010. The concept of territorial jurisdiction is a concept, introduced in the statutes, which according to us is, in order to effectively deal into suo motu or filed by the aggrieved persons, to protect their interests, which is only a procedure, rather than a rule of absolute nature. To put it otherwise territorial jurisdiction is a concept well known in law, empowering judicial officers and courts and Tribunals to function within the precincts of the territorial jurisdiction, which is basically intended to regulate the procedure in filing litigations,
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
121
and in our considered view, will never take away the power conferred under law, on the NGT, New Delhi, to deal with the object of the provisions the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, rules framed thereunder, provisions of law and that is why procedural laws empower the superior courts to transfer a litigation from one place to another. Issue on distance criteria for allowing mining activity in particular, quarrying activities have a national relevance and importance in a State, for the reason that it is a matter concerning citizens to have a quality life assured under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Tribunal is constituted with the predominant objective of redressing grievances and remedy and to develop national laws regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage, thought it fit to consider the situation in question, addressing at the national level, which would avoid multiplicity of proceedings too. Moreover, whether it is considered by the Principal Bench or the Zonal Bench, no manner of prejudice is caused to the appellants other than the inconvenience of travelling up to the Principal Bench. The territorial jurisdiction is distinct from the jurisdictional power exercised by an authority conferred under a statute. The power exercised by the Principal Bench and the Zonal Benches are co-equal in nature and there is no superior power conferred on the Principal Bench. But, however, the provisions of Act, 2010 shows that there is only a Chairperson to the Tribunal, who is vested with powers under rule 3 of the National Green Tribunal (Practices and
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
122
Procedure) Rules, 2011, in the matter of distribution of business among the different ordinary place or places of sittings of Tribunal and the Chairperson shall have the power to decide the distribution of business of the Tribunal among the members of the Tribunal sitting at different places by order and specify the matters which may be dealt with by each such sitting in accordance with the provisions of clause (d) of sub-section (4) section 4 of the Act,2010. It is significant to note that as per rule 3(3) of the Procedural Rules, 2011, if any question arises as to whether any matter falls within the purview of the business allocated to a place of sitting, the decision of the Chairperson shall be final. The explanation thereto makes it clear that the expression “matter” includes application for interim relief, which is an inclusive definition clearly indicating that it is an empowerment added to the main powers under law. Various other powers are conferred on the Chairperson as per Rules, 2011, to adopt procedure and issue general or special orders for adopting circuit procedure etc. Taking into account the provisions of Rules, 2011, we are of the view, the notification issued by the Government of India extracted above is subservient, which can never stand in the way of the NGT translating the provisions of the acts specified in Schedule I of NGT Act, 2010 and the Rules thereto, which is the predominant purpose for which the Tribunal is constituted for.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
123
exercised, to protect the environment from pollution. Matters being so, we are of the view that the appellants have not made out any case for interference with the judgment of the learned single Judge, there being no jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities justifying to do so in an intra court appeal filed under section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. We also make it clear that the discussions were made above in view of the grounds raised in the appeals and the arguments advanced traversing through the said laws.
In the result, writ appeals fail and they are dismissed. However, we make it clear that since the order of the Tribunal was set aside having not complied with the principles of natural justice, the appellants are at liberty to take up the matter with the Tribunal including the distance of 100 and 200 meters fixed by the Tribunal in its
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
124
impugned order, and ordered to be continued by the learned single Judge to the extent specified in the interim order dated 6.8.2020. It is also made clear that, by the above discussion, we do not intend to alter the findings and directions issued by the
learned Single Judge in any manner, and they would remain intact as such.
Sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR,
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY,
smv
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
125
APPENDIX OF WA 250/2021
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 06.08.2020 IN WPC NO.15305 OF 2020. ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN RP NO.1 OF 2020 DATED 28.01.2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'NBLE COURT.
W.A.No.250 of 2021 & con.cases
126
APPENDIX OF WA 366/2021
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 8.1.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT.
3 issues framed by the court
Could the NGT treat a letter representation as an application and exercise suo motu powers to prescribe quarry distance safeguards?
Did the territorial allocation to the Southern Bench prevent the Principal Bench from addressing quarry pollution nationally?
Should interim restrictions on fresh and renewed quarry permissions continue pending reconsideration by the NGT?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority of India v. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch and othersRelied on¶816
[(2020)SCC Online SC 572] · Who else cites this
Goa Foundation v. Union of India and othersDistinguished¶843
[(2014) 6 SCC 590] · Who else cites this
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries(I) Limited and othersDistinguished¶843
[(2019) SCC Online SC 221] · Who else cites this
Samrao v. District Magistrate, ThanaRelied on¶591
AIR 1952 SC 324 · Who else cites this
Raj Krishna v. Bonod KanungoRelied on¶598
AIR 1954 SC 202 · Who else cites this
Rananjaya Singh v. Baji Nath SinghRelied on¶613
AIR 1954 SC 749 · Who else cites this
The State of Bihar v. Hira Lal KejriwalRelied on¶619
AIR 1960 SC 47 · Who else cites this
S. Gurmej Singh v. S. Pratap SinghRelied on¶621
AIR 1960 SC 122 · Who else cites this
A. R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas NayakRelied on¶623
(1984) 2 SCC 500 · Who else cites this
Balasinor Nagrik Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Babubhai Shankerlal PandyaRelied on¶626
(1987) 1 SCC 606 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Dileep Kumar SinghRelied on¶630
[AIR 2015 SC 1420] · Who else cites this
Pratap Chandra Mehta v. State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.Relied on¶642
[(2011) 9 SCC 573] · Who else cites this
Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishna LullaRelied on¶650
[(2016) 3 SCC 619] · Who else cites this
Abhiram Singh and Ors. v. C.D. Commachen (Dead) by L.Rs. and OrsRelied on¶659
[(2017) 2 SCC 629 · Who else cites this
K.H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob and Ors.Relied on¶692
[AIR 2019 SC 4681] · Who else cites this
D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society and Ors. v. Director of Public Instructions and Ors.Relied on¶695
[(2019) 9 SCC 185] · Who else cites this
Tachi Taga Tara v. Rajendra Singh BhandariDistinguished¶840
[(2018)11 SCC 734] · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Centre for Environment Protection Research and Development and OthersReferred¶708
[(2020) SCC Online SC 687] · Who else cites this
State of U.P. v. Subhash Chandra JaiswalReferred¶708
[(2017) 5 SCC 163] · Who else cites this
Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others v. Achyut Kashi Nath Karekar and anotherDistinguished¶847
Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others v. Achyut Kashi Nath Karekar and another
Standard Chartered Bank v. Dharminder BhohiReferred¶716
[(2013) 15 SCC 341] · Who else cites this
Mantri Techzone (Pvt.)Ltd v. Forward Foundation and OthersRelied on¶800
[(2019)SCC Online SC 322] · Who else cites this
Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Authority and othersDistinguished¶840
[(2021) SCC Online SC 7] · Who else cites this
Deepak Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and othersDistinguished¶847
Deepak Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others
10 provisions across 5 enactments
SACHU RAJAN EAPEN
STATE OF KERALA
THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY
CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
M. HARIDASAN
S.MANIKUMAR
SHAJI P.CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
