Allowed

Raji Mathew v. Union of India

Kerala HC19 Aug 2022WP(C)/12829/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court allowed two writ petitions, quashing conditions in Environmental Clearances that mandated obtaining Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife clearance for quarrying operations located within 10 Km of protected areas, relying on Apex Court directives regarding buffer zones.

What did the court decide?

Orders mentioned for W.P.(C). No.12829/2022 and W.P.(C). No.14883/2022 that the respondents consider the applications for grant of mining lease to the petitioners without insisting for clearance from

Raji Mathew Vs Union of India — 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 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 12829 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

RAJI MATHEW, AGED 56 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.HIGHRANGE METAL CRUSHER, LAKSHMIKOVIL.P.O, RANIMUDI, PEERMADE, IDUKKI-685531.

¶7

BY ADVS. SANTHOSH MATHEW ARUN THOMAS KARTHIKA MARIA ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL ABI BENNY AREECKAL LEAH RACHEL NINAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE, PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, CGO COMPLEX, LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.

¶10

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY FOREST AND WILDLIFE (F)DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

3 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶13

: 2 :

¶14

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

¶15

5 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY – (SEIAA), KERALA, K.S.R.T.C.BUS STAND TERMINAL COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶16

6 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PERIYAR TIGER RESERVE EAST DIVISION, THEKKADY-685509.

¶17

7 NATIONAL BOARD OF WILDLIFE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE, INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN, JOR BOGH ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.

¶18

8 THE CHIEF WILDLIFE WARDEN AND PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶19

R1 BY ADV SMT.M.SHAJNA, CGC SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FOREST) R6 BY SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHANAN, SC

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.08.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).14883/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶26

FRIDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 14883 OF 2022

¶27

PETITIONER:

¶28

DAVID P.V., AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, PALLIYAN HOUSE,PERUVAKA, ARATTUTHARA POST, WYANAD DISTRICT-670 645

¶29

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

¶30

RESPONDENTS:

¶31

1 THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST & CLIMATE CHANGE, INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN, JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110003, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶32

2 STANDING COMMITTEE FOR NATIONAL BOARD FOR WILD LIFE, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FOREST & CLIMATE CHANGE, INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAWAN, JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY

¶33

3 STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA KERALA), 4TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, TRIVANDRUM- 695 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY

¶34

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶35

: 4 :

¶36

4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM -695001

¶37

5 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM -695001

¶38

6 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANATHAPURAM -695001

¶39

7 THE GEOLOGIST, MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE, KALPETTA, WAYAYNAD -673121

¶40

8 THE CHIEF WILD LIFE WARDEN, FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶41

R1 BY ADV SMT.MINI GOPINATH, CGC

¶42

SRI.T.P. SAJAN SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FORESTS) R3 BY SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, SC

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.08.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).12829/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

: 5 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 and 14883 of 2022

¶49

Dated this the 19^th day of August, 2022

¶50

J U D G M E N T

¶51

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶52

The petitioners in both the writ petitions are

¶53

holding quarrying lease for carrying out mining operations. The petitioners are aggrieved by condition No.1 imposed in the Environmental Clearance granted to them that as the project proponent's quarry site is located within 10 Km. distance from National Park / Sanctuary, as per OM dated 08.08.2019 of MoEF & CC, clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife is mandatory for starting a quarry and that the project proponent shall obtain a clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL) before starting any activity at site.

¶54

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶55

: 6 :

¶56

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12929/2022 is the Managing Partner of M/s.Highrange Metal Crusher at Peermade. The petitioner applied for quarrying lease for carrying out mining operations in 4.605 Hectares of land in Peermade Village. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14883/2022, who is a grantee of Letter of Intent, holds 2.4843 Hectares of land in Mananthavady Taluk.

¶57

The petitioners submit that initially District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) was taking a stand that application for Environmental Clearance submitted by the petitioners cannot be considered since the Notification issued by the Central Government regarding Eco Sensitive Areas is in draft stage. This Court in Raji Mathew v. Director of Mining and Geology [2018 (1) KHC 906] held that mere fact that there is a delay in finalisation of the draft notification by the Central Government, ought not stand in the way of consideration of the applications for Environmental Clearance.

¶58

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶59

: 7 :

¶60

The National Green Tribunal held that DEIAA do

¶61

not have the technical competence to consider applications for Environmental Clearance. Thereupon, all the applications which were pending before the DEIAA were forwarded to the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). The petitioners were asked to submit clearance from the Wildlife Warden.

¶62

The Central Government issued draft notification prescribing Eco Sensitive Areas of Periyar Tiger Reserve East Division, Idukki. The petitioners would submit that the validity period of the draft notification has expired. The petitioners would urge that approval of the National Board for Wildlife is required only for construction of commercial tourist lodges, hotels, zoos and safari parks inside a sanctuary. The National Green Tribunal in Amit Kumar v. Union of India and others (Miscellaneous Application No.684/2015) passed an order dated 18.08.2015 holding that distance of 1 Km. from the boundaries of National Park and Wildlife Sanctuaries could be a relevant consideration as recorded in

¶63

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶64

: 8 :

¶65

the judgment of the Hon'be Apex Court in the case of Goa Foundation (II) case. The petitioners would urge that in view of the said observation made by the National Green Tribunal, there can be no prohibition under law to carry on mining activity beyond 1 Km. of the boundaries of National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuaries.

¶66

The petitioners would further submit that the Ministry of Environment and Forests issued Ext.P12 OM dated 08.08.2019 prescribing procedure for consideration of developmental projects located within 10 Km. of National Park / Wildlife Sanctuary seeking Environmental Clearance. Clause (iv) of Ext.P12 provided that proposals involving mining of minerals within the ESZ or 1 Km from the boundaries of National Parks and Sanctuaries whichever is prohibited by the Hon'be Apex Court, clearance from SCNBWL is mandatory. According to the petitioners, no clearance from the SCNBWL is required for carrying out mining beyond 1 Km distance.

¶67

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶68

: 9 :

¶69

The Administrator of SEIAA, however, informed the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12829/2022 that the proposed quarry area is within 10 Km. distance from Idukki Wildlife Sanctuary and therefore clearance from Wildlife Warden is required. The petitioner informed the Administrator that his proposed quarry is situated beyond 10 Km. The Deputy Director, Periyar Tiger Reserve West Division informed that the Tiger Reserve is the closest protected area / wildlife sanctuary from the proposed quarry which is situated at a distance of 8.66 Km. It was also stated that the Periyar Tiger Reserve West Division and Idukki Wildlife Sanctuary are at a distance from 10.37 Km. and 14.50 Km. respectively from the proposed quarry of the petitioner.

¶70

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority issued Ext.P20 Environmental Clearance No.19/Q/2021 dated 16.04.2021 to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12829/2022. General condition No.(i) in Ext.P20 stipulated that as the project proponent's quarry site is located within 10 Km distance from Periyar Tiger Reserve, as

¶71

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶72

: 10 :

¶73

per OM dated 08.08.2019, clearance from SCNBWL is mandatory for starting a quarry and the project proponent shall obtain clearance from SCNBWL before starting any activity at site.

¶74

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14883/2022 would submit that the proposed site of his quarry lies 9.09 Km. away from the boundary of the Kottiyoor Wildlife Sanctuary and 5.63 Km. away from the boundary of the Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary. The SEIAA, while issuing Ext.P2 Environmental Clearance No.84/Q/2020 dated 19.08.2020 directed the petitioner to obtain Wildlife Clearance.

¶75

The petitioners would argue that the insistence on clearance from SCNBWL is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. The respondents are imposing a restriction as to the location of industries/activities/processes etc. which cannot be made through an Office Memorandum. Such restrictions can be imposed only by enacting a law as contemplated under Article 13 of the Constitution of India. The Office Memorandum dated 08.08.2019, based on which

¶76

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶77

: 11 :

¶78

Wildlife Clearance is insisted, is not one issued by the Central Government invoking the power under Rule 5(4) of the Environmental (Protection) Rules, 1986, nor is it one issued in compliance of the mandatory procedure contemplated under Rule 5. The petitioners therefore seek to declare that the OM dated 08.08.2019 to the extent it stipulates that proposals involving developmental activities/projects located within 10 Km. from National Park / Wildlife Sanctuaries where final ESZ Notification is not notified or where ESZ Notification is in draft stage, to obtain prior clearance from SCNBWL is illegal and violative of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1985 and Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.

¶79

The respondents entered appearance and resisted the writ petitions. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that OM dated 08.08.2019 has been issued by the Director, Government of India, MoEF & CC (IA Division) laying down procedure for consideration of developmental projects located within 10 Km. of National Park / Wildlife

¶80

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶81

: 12 :

¶82

Sanctuary seeking Environmental Clearance under the provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006.

¶83

In Ext.P12, it has been made clear that proposals involving developmental activity/project located within the notified Eco-Sensitive Zones (ESZ) shall be regulated and governed by the concerned ESZ notification. However, for the developmental project/activity located within the notified ESZ and covered under the schedule of the EIA Notification 2006, prior clearance from Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL) is mandatory. In such cases, the project proponent shall submit the application simultaneously for grant of Terms of Reference as well as wildlife clearance.

¶84

For proposals involving developmental activity/project located outside the stipulated boundary limit of notified ESZ and located within 10 Km. of National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary, prior clearance from Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL) may

¶85

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶86

: 13 :

¶87

not be applicable. However, such proposals from environmental angle including impact of developmental activity/project on the wildlife habitat, if any, would be examined by the sector specific Expert Appraisal Committee and appropriate conservation measures in the form of recommendations shall be made. These recommendations shall be explicitly mentioned in the environmental clearance letter and shall be ensured by the member secretary concerned. For proposals involving developmental activity/project located within 10 Km. of National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary wherein final ESZ notification is not notified (or) ESZ notification is in draft stage, prior clearance from Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (SCNBWL) is mandatory. In such cases, the project proponent shall submit the application simultaneously for grant of Terms of Reference/Environmental Clearance as well as Wildlife Clearance. Proposals involving mining of minerals within the ESZ (or) one kilometre from the boundaries of National Parks and Sanctuaries whichever is

¶88

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶89

: 14 :

¶90

higher, is prohibited in accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 04.08.2006 in the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. UOI in W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995 and dated 21.04.2014 in the matter of Goa Foundation v. UOI in W.P.(C) No.435 of 2012. It is relying on the mandatory directions contained in the OM dated 08.08.2019 that the petitioners were required to obtain Wildlife Clearance.

¶91

The petitioners are obliged to obtain clearance from the SCNBWL for operating quarry. The Central Government is empowered to impose restrictions in the nature of one imposed as per the Office Memorandum referred above. Prior clearance from SCNBWL is required for projects and development activities within 10 Km. from National Parks. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners are therefore without any merit and are liable to be dismissed, urged the respondents.

¶92

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Special Government Pleader

¶93

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶94

: 15 :

¶95

representing the State Government, the respective learned Central Government Counsel appearing in the writ petitions and the learned Standing Counsel for SEIAA.

¶96

After perusing the writ petitions and hearing the counsel appearing on either side, I find that the Hon'be Apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India [2022 (3) KLT 739 (SC)] has considered the issue. The Hon'be Apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra) gave the following directions:

¶97

“44. We accordingly direct:

¶98

(a) Each protected forest, that is national park or wildlife sanctuary must have an ESZ of minimum one kilometre measured from the demarcated boundary of such protected forest in which the activities proscribed and prescribed in the Guidelines of 9^th February 2011 shall be strictly adhered to. For Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary, it shall be 500 metres so far as subsisting activities are concerned.

¶99

(b) In the event, however, the ESZ is already prescribed as per law that goes beyond one kilometre buffer zone, the wider margin as ESZ shall prevail. If such wider buffer zone beyond one kilometre is proposed under any statutory instrument for a particular national park or wildlife sanctuary awaiting final decision in that regard, then till such final decision is taken, the ESZ covering the area beyond one kilometre as proposed shall be maintained.

¶100

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶101

: 16 :

¶102

(c) The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests as also the Home Secretary of each State and Union Territory shall remain responsible for proper compliance of the said Guidelines as regards nature of use within the ESZ of all national parks and sanctuaries within a particular State or Union Territory. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests for each State and Union Territory shall also arrange to make a list of subsisting structures and other relevant details within the respective ESZS forthwith and a report shall be furnished before this Court by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of each State and Union Territory within a period of three months. For this purpose, such authority shall be entitled to take assistance of any governmental agency for satellite imaging or photography using drones.

¶103

(d) Mining within the national parks and wildlife sanctuaries shall not be permitted.

¶104

(e) In the event any activity is already being undertaken within the one kilometre or extended buffer zone (ESZ), as the case may be, of any wildlife sanctuary or national park which does not come within the ambit of prohibited activities as the 9^th February 2011 Guidelines, such activities may continue with permission of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of each State or Union Territory and the person responsible for such activities in such a situation shall obtain necessary permission within a period of six months. Such permission shall be given once the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests is satisfied that the activities concerned do not come within the prohibited list and were continuing prior to passing of this order in a legitimate manner. No new permanent structure shall be permitted to come up for whatsoever purpose within the ESZ.

¶105

(f) The minimum width of the ESZ may be diluted in overwhelming public interest but for that purpose the State or Union Territory concerned

¶106

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶107

: 17 :

¶108

shall approach the CEC and MoEF&CC and both these bodies shall give their respective opinions/recommendations before this Court. On that basis, this Court shall pass appropriate order.

¶109

(g) In the event the CEC, MoEF&CC, the Standing Committee of National Board of Wildlife or any other body of persons or individual having special interest in environmental issues consider necessary for maintaining a wider or larger ESZ respect any national park or wildlife sanctuary, such body or individual shall approach the CEC. In such situation the CEC shall be at liberty examine the need of wider ESZ in respect of any national park wildlife sanctuary consultation with all the stakeholders including the State or Union Territory concerned, MoEF&CC as also the Standing Committee of National Board of Wildlife and then approach this Court with its recommendations.

¶110

(h) In respect of sanctuaries or national parks for which the proposal of State or Union Territory has not been given, the 10 kilometres buffer zone as ESZ. as indicated the order passed by this Court on 4^th December 2006 in the case Goa Foundation (supra) and also contained in the Guidelines of February 2011 shall be implemented. Within that area, the entire set of restrictions concerning an ESZ shall operate till final decision in that regard is arrived at.

¶111

(i) I.A. No. 1412 2005 and I.A.No.117831 of 2019 do not relate to the issues involved I.A. No.1000 2003. These applications may be placed before the appropriate Bench to be heard independently.

¶112

(j) For the same reason, I.A. No.1992 of 2007 shall also be dealt with independently by the appropriate Bench and no order is being passed concerning this application this stage.

¶113

(k) The application of the State Rajasthan registered as I.A. No.3880 of 2015 relates to

¶114

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶115

: 18 :

¶116

clarification of an order passed in the case of Goa Foundation (W.P.(C) No.460 of 2004). Let this application be placed before the Bench taking up the case Goa Foundation.

¶117

(l) I.A.No.96949 of 2019 and I.A.No.65571 of 2021 are disposed of with directions that the MoEF&CC as also CEC shall proceed to take decision regard to draft proposal for ESZ made by the State of Maharashtra to the extent 03.89 kilometres and the MoEF&CC shall take final decision on that basis within period three months, said decision has not already been taken.

¶118

(m) Prayers for impleadment of the applicants I.A. Nos. 984 of 2003, 1026 of 2004, 1123 2004, 1197 2004 and 1251 of 2004 are allowed. Necessary amendments may carried out these regards.

¶119

(n) For the reasons already given, however, prayers of the applicants I.A. Nos.982 of 2003, 1027 2004, 1124 2004, 1198 of 2004, 1210 of 2004, 1250 2004 and 1512 2006 are rejected.

¶120

(o) The CEC shall quantify compensation to recovered from each of any statutory provision order Court. Specific recommendations for compensatory afforestation, reclamation, clearing overburden dumping as also compensation monetary units for degradation forest resources shall made. further recommendations concerning confiscation of earth moving equipments and other machineries lying within or periphery of the said sanctuary shall made CEC. Recommendations shall made period of four before this Court in the form an application. This Court shall consider passing appropriate going through such application. The exercise concerning such reparation, including quantifying compensation shall be undertaken giving the mining operator, State and MoEF&CC opportunity hearing.

¶121

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶122

: 19 :

¶123

(p) In the event there is any subsisting order of High Court any Court subordinate such High covering any the issues Court this order, this order shall prevail over any such order which may be contrary these directions.

¶124

(q) We have already observed there are certain overlapping issues involved in Writ Petition the of 2004) and Petition (C) No.435 2012). request the Hon'ble the Chief Justice India to consider having present Writ Petition i.e. Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Union India & Ors., W.P. (C) No.460 of 2004 (Goa Foundation Union India) as also W.P. No.435 of 2012 (Goa Foundation Union India & Ors.) be heard together before the same Bench. The registry may place this order before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.”

¶125

The directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court would show that if wider buffer zone beyond one kilometre is proposed under any statutory instrument for a particular National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary awaiting final decision in that regard, then till such final decision is taken, the ESZ covering the area beyond one kilometre as proposed shall be maintained.

¶126

The directions at paragraph 44(h) would show that in respect of Sanctuaries or National Parks for which the proposal of a State or Union Territory has not been given, the 10 Kilometres buffer zone as ESZ, as indicated in the

¶127

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶128

: 20 :

¶129

order passed by the Apex Court on 4^th December, 2006 in the case of Goa Foundation v. Union of India [(2006 (4) KLT Online 1110 (SC)] and also contained in the Guidelines of 9^th February, 2011 shall be implemented.

¶130

The directions of the Apex Court contained in paragraph 44(p) would show that in the event there is any subsisting order of any High Court or any Court Subordinate to such High Court covering any of the issues dealt with by the Apex Court in the order, then the order of the Apex court shall prevail over any such order which are contrary to the directions.

¶131

In view of the directions given by the Hon'be Apex Court and following the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.19710/2022, W.P.(C) No.12829/2022 is allowed to the extent of quashing general condition No.(i) of Ext.P20 Environmental Clearance. There will be a direction to the respondents to consider the application for grant of mining lease to the petitioner without insisting for clearance from SCNBWL.

¶132

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶133

: 21 :

¶134

W.P.(C) No.14883/2022 is allowed to the extent of

¶135

quashing Clause 5(6) of Ext.P2 Environmental Clearance. There will be a direction to respondents 6 and 7 to consider the application for grant of mining lease to the petitioner without insisting for clearance from SCNBWL.

¶136

Sd/-

¶137

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶138

aks/17.09.2022

¶139

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶140

: 22 :

¶141

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12829/2022

¶142

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶143

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.2.2018 OF SENT BY THE TAHSILDAR TO DEIAA. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT NOTIFICATION DATED 3-10-2018 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20TH FEBRUARY, 2018 IN W.P(C)NO.31959 OF 2017. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12-32019 IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1952/2018 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR OF ONLINE SUBMISSION AND MONITORING OF WILDLIFE CLEARANCE PROPOSALS. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.7.2019 EVIDENCING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICATION BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PERIYAR TIGER RESERVE WEST DIVISION, PEERMEDE. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 4-9-2019 SENT BY THE PETITIONER AND THE ACKNOWLEDGEMETN RECEIPT Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT NOTIFICATION DATED 31-3-2016 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16-11-2017 SENT BY THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE (ESZ-DIVISION) TO THE PRINCIPAL CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (WL) AND CHIEF WILDLIFE WARDEN, FOREST HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶144

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶145

: 23 :

¶146

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19TH DECEMBER, 2017 SENT BY THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE TO THE CHIEF SECRETARY, STATE OF KERALA Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.3.2020 ISSUED BY MOEF Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 8-8-2019 ISSUED BY MOEF Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.8.2019 SENT BY THE SEIAA TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21-102019 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO SEIAA). Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.28825/19 DATED 3.12.2019. Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.2.2020 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PERIYAR TIGER RESERVE FOREST DIVISION Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PERIYAR TIGER RESERVE FOREST DIVISION TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.7.2020 ISSUED BY WILDLIFE DIVISION OF MOEF. Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16-22021 IN WP(C)NO.24297 OF 2020 Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE DT.16.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN MTR MOONADI QUARRY (M/S.) MALAPPURAM V.UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS WHICH IS REPORTED AS 2021 KHC 3262. Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)NO.24095/2021, DATED 10.11.2021.

¶147

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶148

: 24 :

¶149

Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)NO.25750/2021, DATED 30.11.2021.

¶150

W.P.(C) Nos.12829 & 14883 of 2022

¶151

: 25 :

¶152

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14883/2022

¶153

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶154

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MINING & GEOLOGY DATED 4.1.2018 Exhibit P2 RUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE GRANTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.8.2020 Exhibit P3 RUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 8.8.2019 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DRAFT NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE MOEF, DATED 28.1.2021 Exhibit P4a TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DRAFT NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE MOEF, DATED 24.8.2020. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 29.11.2019 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED NIL Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN MTR MOONADI QUARRY (M/S.) MALAPPURAM V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS WHICH IS REPORTED AS 2021 KHC 3262 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP(C) 12829/2022 DATED 6.4.2022 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE WILDLIFE WARDEN ARALAM, KANNUR Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REPORT OF THE WILDLIFE WARDEN, WAYANAD Exhibit P10(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR FORESTS AND WILDLIFE WARDEN, WAYANAD.

¶155

Raji Mathew v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raji Mathew v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subash K.Baby, Vs the District Collector

Abdul Gafoor, Vs the Geologist Squad ( Sr )

Parameswaran Pilla Vs Nedumangad Municipality

Sakkier Hussain Vs the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

David .P.v Vs the Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Dr.Sivaji Jaganathan Vs State of Kerala