Dismissed

V.Resalayyan v. the Union of India

Kerala HC29 Nov 2022WP(C)/17051/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash an order and stop mining near Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuary. An application to transfer to NGT was heard. Petitioner later moved to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the court again for appropriate reliefs. Writ permitted to be withdrawn and petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition permitted to be withdrawn by the Court with liberty to raise appropriate reliefs, if required.

V.Resalayyan Vs the Union of India — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.17051 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶8

TUESDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 17051 OF 2020

PETITIONER:

V.RESALAYYAN

AGED 61 YEARS

S/O. R. VARGHESE, THOTTATHU VEEDU, MARAPPALAM, THEKKUPARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 505

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1 THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF FOREST, ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE, PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, JOR BAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 003.

¶17

2 THE DIRECTOR,

¶18

MINING AND GEOLOGY, DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.

¶19

3 STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALLIMUKKU-KANNAMMOOLA ROAD, OVERBRIDGE, VELAKUDI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024

¶20

4 THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM PALACE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.

¶21

5 THE VELLARADA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VELLARADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 505, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶22

W.P.(C) No.17051 of 2020

¶23

¶24

6 M/S. TRAVANCORE READYMIX (P) LTD, REPRESENTED BY V. SUDHAKARAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, T.C NO. 54/928, ROHINI SADANAM, MELAMVODE, NEMOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 020

¶25

7 M/S. GRACE AGGREGATES INDIA (P) LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 010

¶26

8 THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (DEIAA)

¶27

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 2ND FLOOR CIVIL STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 043

¶28

BY ADVS. SRI.TEK CHAND, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

W.P.(C) No.17051 of 2020

¶31

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2022

¶34

S.MANIKUMAR, CJ.

¶35

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

¶36

Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction calling

¶37

for the records leading to Exhibit P4 order and quash the same.

¶38

Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to stop all mining/quarrying operations within the Vellarada Grama Panchayat including that of respondents 6 and 7 or any other persons within a radius 10(ten)kms. of the Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuary forthwith.

¶39

Such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case and the costs of this case.

¶40

On 21^st November, 2022, in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.© No.17051 of 2020, we passed the following order:

¶41

“ O R D E R

¶42

This interlocutory application is filed to transfer the instant writ petition

¶43

to the National Green Tribunal, Chennai. The main grievance of the petitioner is regarding the location of quarry site within 10 kms of the Neyyar Wildlife

¶44

W.P.(C) No.17051 of 2020

¶45

¶46

Sanctuary.

¶47

For brevity, paragraph No. 2 of the I.A.No. 1 of 2022 is reproduced. :-

¶48

“2. The above writ petition was filed by the petitioner

¶49

against the illegal quarrying operations being carried out by the respondents 6 and 7. It is alleged that the quarrying is being done within 10 kms from the Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuary. Now in view of the continued mining activities the people of the area has been put to irreparable difficulties. Their peaceful life has been adversely affected by the illegal quarrying operations conducted in the said places.”

¶50

On the above said aspect, by inviting a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C.)No.202/1995, between In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others, reported in [2022(3) KLT Online 1032] , Mr.Nagaraj Narayanan, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that among other directions issued in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph No. 44 stated as follows:-

¶51

“44. We accordingly direct:-

¶52

(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 9th February 2011 shall be strictly adhered to. For Jamua Ramgarh wildlife sanctuary, it shall be 500 metres so far as subsisting activities are concerned.

¶53

(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

¶54

W.P.(C) No.17051 of 2020

¶55

¶56

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. xxx”

¶57

Mr. P.B. Sahasranaman, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,

¶58

submitted that he will go through the said judgment, if given an opportunity.

¶59

Post on 29.11.2022."

¶60

On this day, when the matter came up for hearing Mr.P.B.Saharsranaman –

¶61

learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to raise appropriate reliefs, if and when required.

¶62

Taking note of the above submission, the writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

S.MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶65

smv

¶66

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

V.Resalayyan v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Resalayyan v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Government of India Vs C.H.Nabeesa

Union of India Vs K.K.Januamma

The Welfare Fund Inspector Vs K.S Antony

Cochin College of Engineering and Technology Vs Mgm Silver Jubilee College of Pharmacy

Mgm Silver Jubilee College of Polytechnic and Pharmaceutical Sciences Vs Mgm Silver Jubilee College of Pharmacy

The Palakkad Municipality, Vs Devadas