Allowed

David P.V v. Ministry of Environment

Kerala HC18 Feb 2022RP/198/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition sought restoration of W.P.(C) 28536/2020 to enable the petitioner to challenge the requirement of National Board of Wildlife approval for a quarry project. The court allowed the review, recalled the impugned judgment, and restored the writ petition to file.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed. Judgment disposing W.P.(C) 28536/2020 is recalled, and W.P.(C) No. 28536 of 2020 is restored to file to permit challenge on National Board of Wildlife approval.

David P.V Vs Ministry of Environment — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 29TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

RP NO. 198 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28536/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF

¶7

KERALA

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶9

DAVID P.V
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.VARGHESE, PALLIYAN HOUSE,
PERUVAKA, ARATTUTHARA POST,
WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.
K.J.MANU RAJ
K.VINAYA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 3RD FLOOR, VAYU WING, INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, JORBAGH ROAD,ALINGANJ, NEW DELHI-110003.

¶13

2 THE NATIONAL BOARD OF WILD LIFE/STANDING COMMITTEE, NATIONAL BOARD OF WILD LIFE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY(WILD LIFE WING) 3RD FLOOR, VAYU WING, INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, JORBHAGH ROAD, ALINGANJ, NEW DELHI-110003.

¶14

3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

RP NO. 198 OF 2022 2

¶16

4 THE SECRETARY, FOREST, WILDLIFE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶17

5 THE STATE BOARD OF WILDLIFE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, PCCF AND CHIEF WILDLIFE WARDEN, FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶18

6 WILDLIFE WARDEN, WAYANAD WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, SULTHAN BATHERI, WAYANAD-673592.

¶19

7THE DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE MINING AND GEOLOGY,
PATTOM PALACE.P.O, KESAVADASAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶20

8 THE GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DISTRICT OFFICE, KALPETTA, WAYANAD-673121.

¶21

SRI.APPU P S, GP, SRI.MANU S, ASGI

¶22

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶23

RP NO. 198 OF 2022 3

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2022

¶26

W.P.(C) No.28536 of 2020 was disposed of directing

¶27

respondents 3 to 6 to place the records relating to the quarry in question before the Chief Wildlife Warden within a period of one month. The Chief Wildlife Warden was directed to obtain necessary reports/endorsements/ recommendations and place the same before the 1^st respondent who in turn was directed to process the files and pass appropriate orders on NOC within a further period of three months.

¶28

In I.A. No.1 of 2021, the State respondents have

¶29

sought to extend the time limit fixed for placing the files before the 1^st respondent by a further period of five months. Therefore, it is evident that the files are not placed before the 1^st respondent

¶30

so far.

¶31

RP NO. 198 OF 2022 4

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶33

issue involved is revolving around the approval of National Board of Wildlife for the project for establishing a quarry. The requirement of approval of National Board of Wildlife was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.25750 of 2021. This Court has admitted the said writ petition and has passed an interim order on 30.11.2021. The Review Petitioner submits that there are other writ petitions also challenging the said requirement. It is the prayer of the petitioner that he may also be permitted to challenge the said requirement as the issue is now already pending consideration before this Court.

¶34

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶35

the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶36

As the question of approval of National Board of Wildlife for running the quarry is a very crucial element to decide the Environmental Clearance given to the review petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be granted opportunity to challenge the same.

¶37

RP NO. 198 OF 2022 5

¶38

The review petition is allowed. To enable the petitioner to challenge the requirement, judgment delivered by this Court on 26.07.2021 in W.P.(C) No.28536 of 2020 is recalled, and W.P.(C) No. 28536 of 2020 is restored to file.

¶39

 sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

RP NO. 198 OF 2022 6

¶44

APPENDIX OF RP 198/2022

¶45

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶46

Annexure A1A TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE
DATED 19.8.2020 ISSUED BY STATE IMPACT
ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, KERALA.
Annexure A2A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
30.11.2021 IN WP(C)NO.25750 OF 2021.

¶47

RESPONDENT'S/S ANNEXURES : NIL

David P.V v. Ministry of Environment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

David P.V v. Ministry of Environment

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amritha Das Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Pradeep P., Vs State of Kerala

M.K Mohammed Saleem Vs T.T Nisamudheen

K P Shajan Vs Thrissur Corporation

Kunnamkulam Nidhi Limited Vs Rajesh Verma

Ahmmed Kutty P Vs State of Kerala